Part Three: Francis Galton: Inventor of Eugenics

Robert explains how Francis Galton helped invent modern forensic science while looking for ways to be more racist, as well as continuing his weird fetish of 'measuring' attractive women. Sources: https://www.historyofdatascience.com/francis-galton-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-19th-century-science/ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/special-collections/kantsaywhere https://unseenhistories.substack.com/p/the-disturbing-visions-of-francis-galton-gavin-evans https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/dfd786fa-2090-4749-bcbe-3cc7159e55b5/content https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/anti-racism/lies-damned-lies-and-racist-statistics/ https://www.scienceaq.com/Article/other/22011.html https://publicdomainreview.org/essay/the-anthropometric-detective-and-his-racial-clues/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42042093-superior https://books.google.com/books/about/Francis_Galton.html?id=vL0hq80XXqMC https://galton.org/books/memories/index.html https://victorianweb.org/victorian/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////science/health/insanity1.html https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825003853 https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/PTCw5CJT7cE6Kx9ZR/most-people-endorse-some-form-of-eugenics https://www.balkanweb.com/en/They-are-brother-and-sister-but-have-4-children-together.-German-couple-in-trouble-with-authorities--fighting-to-legalize-incest./#gsc.tab=0 https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/blue-plaques/blue-plaque-stories/eugenics/ https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/78669/pg78669-images.html https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/a-dangerous-calculation/ https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/301897 See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Robert Evans?

  Oh my goodness, I didn't see you walk into the internet where I don't ever see you. And you don't really see me unless you're watching the Netflix. So I guess actually quite a few of you do. Anyway, this is Behind the Bastards, this is a podcast about the very worst people in all of history. You know that. This is the second week that we're going to be covering Francis Galton, the man who invented racism. Probably the flippant title I'm going to use for the episode. He's really the guy who invented eugenics and a bunch of fun math stuff and shit. We'll talk about some of that, too. But it's less interesting than the horrible things he did, which are certainly the most notable part of his life. Speaking of people who did horrible, nope, David Bell, you don't do horrible things, do you? No.

• 0:43Speaker 01

  I've had a big, since, oh, man, since we last recorded, I got a second chair. You see my second chair?

• 0:51Robert Evans?

  Oh, I do. I do.

• 0:52Speaker 01

  It looks exactly like the chair I'm sitting in.

• 0:54Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 0:55Speaker 01

  And I went to the Six Flags that kills people.

• 0:57Speaker 02

  Oh, great.

• 0:58Speaker 01

  The one, you know, the one that's been like giving people comas and stuff. I went to it.

• 1:03Robert Evans?

  Oh, yeah. It was like a specific brain stuff, right?

• 1:06Speaker 01

  Yeah, it was not crowded. It was great.

• 1:08Robert Evans?

  That's good. That's the smart way. You, once there's a scandal, that's the right time to go to an amusement park.

• 1:13Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:14Robert Evans?

  Like after Schlitterbonn decapitated that kid, which RIP, but that's when you go, that's when you go to Schlitterbonn. Yeah.

• 1:20Speaker 01

  Exactly.

• 1:23Speaker 03

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.

• 1:27Robert Evans?

  Picture this, you're listening to the Sniffy's Cruising Confessions podcast and suddenly, wait, what did they just say? Well, the questions raised in those show-stopping moments will be answered in the all-new bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor. Hosts Gabe and Chris will dive deep on a specific topic covered in that week's Tuesday episode, from sexual health and HIV prevention to finding the right doctor. Listen to this special bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor, now on the iHeart Radio app or wherever you get podcasts. Sponsored by Healthy Sexual from Gilead Sciences.

• 1:58Speaker 04

  Cash Flow Crunch, OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 2:28Speaker 05

  I'm Melissa Jelton, host of the What Happened to Her podcast. We're kicking off the season with the Sandra Birchmore story, a case the police wrote off as a suicide in a snowstorm. Her family never bought it, and the man they suspected wore a badge.

• 2:43Speaker 06

  You never know who that devil is because he's wearing a disguise. Sometimes it's a police uniform.

• 2:49Speaker 05

  And you can get access to all episodes 100% ad-free with an iHeart True Crime Plus subscription exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Available only to iHeart True Crime Plus subscribers. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts, search for iHeart True Crime Plus, and subscribe today.

• 3:09Speaker 07

  If anyone wanted to commit a murder, up here would be the greatest place in the world to hide the body. But soon they'll find it.

• 3:18Speaker 06

  He acted friendly. He talked friendly. He sounded friendly.

• 3:22Speaker 07

  They all knew that I did the scary boogie stuff. And they said, maybe she'll find out where this girl is. I saw him violent. Backhand there, pow!

• 3:35Speaker 04

  Listen to The Devil's Quarry, Season Two, in the Bone Valley feed, on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 3:51Robert Evans?

  Well, it's probably time we get back to Francis Galton, right?

• 3:55Speaker 02

  Unfortunately, yeah.

• 3:56Robert Evans?

  Let's, let's, let's get back. So, we had left off, in the 1870s, Francis has invented the term eugenics and has started spreading it around English society. And he's going from this point on, he's gonna keep writing books about eugenics and publish scientific papers. But he's also constantly throughout this period, he's writing like news articles and opinion columns. He's suggesting laws. He's going to be throughout this, as his understanding and beliefs about eugenics evolve, constantly trying to push society to adopt legal, like, schema around, based on his ideas, right? Like, that is, that is from the beginning, like, a major focus for Galton. In 1874, he published a new book,

• 4:38Robert Evans?

  English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. In this book, he said, he did the same thing he always does, where he looks at like the guys he considers eminent, and then tries to figure out, like, how many kids did they find? And like, what families did they come from?

• 4:51Speaker 01

  A lot of lawyers.

• 4:52Robert Evans?

  So he asked, right, a lot, at this time, it was scientists. And he asked, like, 190 fellows from the Royal Society of Science, and to send back, like, self-reported data about their families and their education. And like, 100 of them did, roughly. And his goal was to try to figure out the relative impact of nature versus nurture, right? Look at what these scientists say about, like, what inspired them and made them become great scientists, and try to figure out, how much is, you know, heredity play into scientific genius? And how much is, like, just how you raise people, right? And this is why Galton becomes, if you've all, everyone's heard the term, like, nature versus nurture, we're all familiar with that concept. Galton is the first guy to name it, right? Not that

• 5:35Robert Evans?

  people hadn't wondered about this before, but nature versus nurture, using those specific words to discuss that, comes from Francis Galton. His biographer, Michael Bulwer, suspects that Galton took the phrase itself from a passage in Shakespeare's The Tempest, where Prospero calls his adopted son Caliban, quote, "A devil, a born devil, on whose nature nurture can never stick." Now, one thing Galton found, as he goes through the self-reported backstories of these scientists, is that first sons are twice as likely to be, to become, have become scientists, as youngest sons, right? They're like, way likelier. And Galton accurately credits this to the advantage of nurture. Obviously, there's not like a genetic reason

• 6:18Robert Evans?

  that the first son is gonna be better at science. These are because of, like, social things, right? There are, and he concludes basically, well, first sons, obviously, they get more resources. It's a period of time in which, like, legally, if you're the first son, you pretty much have to inherit most of what you're, if not everything, that your dad has, right? Like, that's a big part of, like, what colonialism is. Second and third sons need something to do to go make their fortune, so they go to the colonies or something, right?

• 6:46Speaker 01

  First, first born is like, you're putting all your resources into it.

• 6:49Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 6:50Speaker 01

  You're taking a big swing. If you screw it up, you can make another, like, you know, it's, it's.

• 6:55Robert Evans?

  But if the first succeeds, you don't need those other kids.

• 6:58Speaker 01

  Good and bad there.

• 6:59Robert Evans?

  Yeah, exactly, right? And so, you know, to Galton's credit, he sees, like, well, obviously, this is a nurture sort of thing, and in a major way, right? Like, that, like, that specific aspect of the fact that first sons are more likely to be famous scientists comes down to nurture. But rather than generalizing that and being like, wow, well, if that major thing, like, if nurture, like, had such an impact there, to where, like, first sons are twice as likely to become scientists, maybe nurture has, like, a lot to do with whether or not people get into science, right? Maybe that's, like, as important as heredity and more important in some ways, right? But he ignores the implications. He completely breezes past this, right? He acknowledges, like, oh, well, that one's down to nurture. And then continues to basically generalize it, like, but nurture really means nothing

• 7:44Robert Evans?

  at all, pretty much, right? Part of why he concludes this is that, based on the self-reported reported data, 56 of the 91 men who responded to him said that they believed they had an innate skill and interest in science. And only 11 of these great scientists did not report having an innate skill, right? So, that.

• 8:05Speaker 01

  Very scientific data.

• 8:07Robert Evans?

  Right, super scientific. These guys are like, I feel like I'm a great scientist born. Yeah. Right. So, as he's, like, looking into these different great scientists, he concludes, obviously, well, if most of them say that they had an innate skill, that means that, like, that's further evidence for what I believe, that heredity has everything to do with intelligence and success. And, you know, you can see how sloppy his work is, just looking into the case of one of the scientists that responded to him, his cousin, Charles Darwin. Because Darwin classified his scientific interest as innate. But when he was asked to, like, well, where does the origin of your interest in your specific, in your specific branch of science come from? He's like, well, it was the voyage I took on the Beagle, right? Like, I would not have gotten interested into, like, heredity and

• 8:52Robert Evans?

  natural selection and stuff. Like, that was all because of this thing that falls under nurture, right? Like, I happened to be in a position to go on this voyage, and that's what spurred my particular interest in this branch of science. Which, again, I think someone more open-minded would be like, well, this is perfect evidence of how there's both nature and nurture, you know, playing together here. Like, Darwin had an innate interest in science that had probably always was going to be with him. But also, specific elements of his life and the opportunities he had heavily influenced the kind of scientist he became, and made sure he was in a position to make his great discovery, right? Like, nurture, you know, what we would call just, like, blind luck, I guess, in a lot of ways, had a lot to do with that, right?

• 9:30Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's, it's like, if you have, like, a sort of analytical mind or a specific personality that was brought on by genetic traits, you might gravitate towards this thing, that then, like, if your parents are also doing that thing already, like, you could have just as easily gotten into something similar, but not the same exact thing. Yeah.

• 9:54Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 9:55Speaker 01

  Again, it's a combination of the two factors.

• 9:58Robert Evans?

  Right. Like, I would be, it would be very silly of me to be like, well, either to be like, well, I just worked hard. And so that's how, like, I wound up as a successful writer. And it would also be silly for me to be like, well, my dad was pretty good at writing and had a nice voice. And so, like, that's why I wound up as a pod, yeah, both of those things had something to do with it, right? Like, it's a, it's always a mix of, of, like, nature and nurture that contributes to this. But Galton has this habit of, like, really, even when he has to acknowledge, like, the massive impact that, like, nurture, so to speak, has on someone like his cousin Charles, he just kind of blazes past it. He never draws broader conclusions. Just like he never draws broader conclusions from the

• 10:39Robert Evans?

  fact that, like, his big sister, who was disabled, also was a really smart person who massively contributed to his intellectual development. And maybe that means people who are disabled have value in society, right?

• 10:50Speaker 01

  Right.

• 10:51Robert Evans?

  Like, he can't, he just doesn't, he refuses to generalize. It's not even a can't thing.

• 10:57Robert Evans?

  And yeah, Bowyer, sorry, Bowyer, Galton's biographer, adds about his sort of analyses of these different scientific self-reports. Furthermore, if one of the parents had scientific tastes, Galton took this as evidence of heredity, but he had no way of distinguishing heredity from encouragement at home, whose importance was acknowledged by one-third of the respondents. So even where his respondents are like, well, yeah, my parents like really pushed me to be a scientist and made sure I had a good education and that probably led me to my field, like, he, he just kind of like breezes past it, right? He call, considers that heredity, like, well, if your parents like science and encourage you to be a scientist, that's heredity, as opposed to like, well, anyone could do that, right? They don't have to be like-

• 11:37Speaker 01

  And this is based off of, again, him just, it's like, he's doing science like a YouTuber does science now.

• 11:42Robert Evans?

  Right.

• 11:43Speaker 01

  He's just asking people what they think they are a scientist. Like, why, why do you think you're a scientist?

• 11:50Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 11:51Speaker 01

  Which is a very, a very shitty starting place. And then he's just sort of hand-waving even when they say things that are against the thing he wants, right?

• 12:00Robert Evans?

  Yeah. He, he does that a lot. When there's a data point that contradicts him, he'll acknowledge it in the paper and then ignore it in his conclusions, because it's inconvenient, right? One of the main things that separates Galton from Darwin, uh, Galton, sorry, one of the main things that separates Galton and Darwin from their critics at this period of time, the people who are like attacking eugenics and don't agree with him, is not that they have a differing understanding of genetics and heredity, because nobody really has a good understanding of genetics and heredity at this point quite yet. But what, what really separates Galton and Darwin from their critics is this, they have a differing belief in whether or not nature and nurture matters. Like Darwin gets convinced by Galton that nurture means basically nothing.

• 12:41Robert Evans?

  And Galton is a vocal advocate of the idea that like, helping out poor kids, giving them more money and more food, better schools, that'll do nothing. Like, they're fucked from the start because they have bad genes, right?

• 12:52Speaker 01

  How convenient.

• 12:53Robert Evans?

  That's basically Galton's atti- Galton's attitude. Um, what, but there are critics of this. One of the most vocal critics of early eugenics was Alfred Russel Wallace. Alfred was a biologist who independently, he's the co-creator of the theory of evolution by natural selection. He and Darwin independently came to it at the same time and published, like, at the same time. Um, they, he just is a lot less well-known. Darwin was way better at the PR end of things, right? And got famous. But Russell's, uh, Russell, Alfred Russel Wallace is just as brilliant a scientist. Again, like, he's, he's recognized today as the, and, and at the time was recognized as someone who would come up with this independently. And he was in some ways a superior scientist to Darwin, uh, because he became an immediate enemy of eugenics, right?

• 13:38Robert Evans?

  Galton comes up with eugenics and tells his cousin, and Darwin's like, oh yeah, that sounds completely right. I'm a bigot now. I mean, he, he, not that he hadn't been before, but Alfred Russel Wallace reads Galton's theories and he's like, well, that's fucking crazy. And he, he writes an article warning them, quote, "The world does not want the eugenicists to set it straight. Give the people good conditions, improve their environment, and all will tend towards the highest type. Eugenics is simply the meddlesome interference of an arrogant scientific priestcraft." And I really like that phrasing, that like, you are pretending to be like a man of science and an atheist, but all you have done is create like a secular religion and appoint yourself basically the pope. That's what Galton has, has turned himself into.

• 14:20Robert Evans?

  He is now like the high priest of this increasingly popular secular faith in heredity and the ability, and they're kind of, both they're sort of apocalyptic and also they're like, you know, utopian sort of heaven vision is that you can breed a perfect society, of people who will live longer and not ever have any problems with violence and make beautiful, brilliant art and be like, perfect, right? We can make perfect special boys forever. That's the, that's the dream, like, uh, like, future that eugenics is promising and that Galton is, you know, turning himself into a hype man for, effectively. And I, I think that calling him a scientific priest does get, because there's an element

• 15:02Robert Evans?

  of this guy, when you read him, he sometimes sounds like a cult leader or like a madman. Like, there's, there's some really crazy quotes from some of his writing. Like, here's a segment from Hereditary Talent and Character, published in 1865. "The power of man over animal life and producing whatever varieties of form he pleases is enormously great. It would seem as though the physical structure of future generations was almost as plastic as clay, under the control of the breeder's will. It is my desire to show more pointedly than, so far as I'm aware, has been attempted before, that mental qualities are equally under control." Right? "The future generations are just like clay, they're putty in our hands, we can mold them perfectly to whatever we want." Right? That's crazy person talk. That's like-

• 15:42Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah.

• 15:43Robert Evans?

  That 90s movie villain shit. Yeah, mad scientist shit. Right? Yeah. Um, unfortunately, a lot of people are into it. "By the 1870s or so, Galton had become well-convinced and argued to much popular acclaim that the native peoples of colonized lands must either be bred like livestock to enhance their positive traits, or in the case of certain peoples who were at the lowest level of his racial hierarchy, should be bred out of existence." Extinction was the goal. Hmm?

• 16:09Speaker 01

  Why are people into this? Cause it's like, someone being like, that we're all slop and in the future we can breed like perfect people. It's so weird for any of you to be like, yeah, that's right. Down with us, you know?

• 16:23Robert Evans?

  They're not saying down with us. He's speaking, cause his audience, I think this is important to get, Dave, cause you, you've brought up that, that's, he's not writing for an audience that we think of it. Like, you publish an article and it's there for like, all of the people who read, right? Who are interested in it or whatever and want to, he is writing specifically for the very tiny number of people who are both like, can read and are educated scientists. He's writing for gentlemen in his own country.

• 16:48Speaker 01

  Rich honkies.

• 16:49Robert Evans?

  Yeah, rich honkies. And what he's saying is that like, us and people like us are the pinnacle of human beings so far, and we're the only ones who really should be breeding. And we can be better, like, our generate, our descendants will be even better than us if we get good at this, but we're the special ones. And so like, we need to restrict everyone else from breeding because we've got it right. We've got culture right and society and like, everything, like, philosophy right. And there's no other value in anyone who does anything differently in any societies or cour- or cultures that are different. They need to be extinguished because this is the only actual way to live. Right? There's always been, I mean, conservatism always has an, an element of this in it of

• 17:32Robert Evans?

  like, well, there's one right way to do things. And kind of eugenics is taking that to the absolute most absurd extent, which is like, there's only one right way to be a human being genetically.

• 17:42Speaker 01

  Right.

• 17:43Robert Evans?

  Right? That's, that's what's going on here. That's who Galton's, how Galton's pitching it, you know? And while, you know, obviously at the time, they have very, medical sciences is much more primitive, they, like, there's not any real ability to like, do a mass sterilization campaign, and he's not advocating that yet, but he is advocating for the extinction of inferior peoples. And his plan for this initially is to move superior people into the area and incentivize them financially and legally to outbreed the others, right? Like, this is why he wants to send Chinese people to Africa to replace black people, because he thinks that they're higher up on the racial list, you know?

• 18:19Speaker 01

  It's like the, it's like, this is like adjacent to people who cry about white genocide, right?

• 18:25Robert Evans?

  Right. Oh, yeah, this is where it comes from.

• 18:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, when I heard the term white genocide-

• 18:29Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 18:30Speaker 01

  I was like, what, wait, what do they think is happening? And I, and, and so I like, looked into it and looked into what these people think is the problem. And they're just describing this gradual thing where cultures will just mix and mingle-

• 18:46Robert Evans?

  Right.

• 18:47Speaker 01

  -in a very positive way. And it was like, oh, so like, just basic progress? And this sounds like people kind of proposing the opposite, right? Where they're like-

• 18:56Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 18:57Speaker 01

  "We're not saying that we need to like, put people in camps, we just need to encourage the opposite of this, like, you know, of race mixing and stuff like that."

• 19:07Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 19:08Speaker 01

  "Everybody goes back to where they came from," or something like that.

• 19:11Robert Evans?

  We certainly, cause there's not a, and he will get more concerned about immigration as it comes on, but initially-

• 19:17Speaker 01

  I'm sure he will.

• 19:18Robert Evans?

  -his belief is that like, we need to improve the world as a colonial power, part of what justifies British colonialism, is that we're improving the gene pool, right? By ideally getting rid of these inferior peoples and breeding the, the peoples, the colonized peoples who are like best, breeding them for better traits. That's what we should be doing. We should be gardeners of the human race, right? That's kind of his initial argu- that's going to change over time, um, somewhat, but that is his initial argument. And white genocide, I will tell you where that comes from, because that also comes out of Galton, right? But he's not-

• 19:51Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 19:52Robert Evans?

  -he's not immediately panicking about that. Initially, he's looking more further afield. He believed that colonialism should do, quote, "The necessary job of replacing inferior peoples with their betters, because they would stupidly fail to submit to the needs of a superior civilization." He was applauded for writing stuff like this, because it was what rich British people wanted to hear, that they were doing the right thing, and in fact, they should be even more racist and even worse to the people that they already basically owned. And this is, I, what he's giving his peers here is something that colonialism started to need by the end of the 19th century, secular moral legitimacy. "It was never hard to find Christian justifications for colonialism, just as many Christians had used scripture to justify slavery."

• 20:36Robert Evans?

  But the problem with this, and obviously, there's a, there's a big justification of like evangelical stuff, right? Of like, well, we need to colonize these places to spread the one true gospel, right? Like that that's a justification for colonialism. But the problem is, if you're, if you're, you can, and people do justify colonialism that way. But if you're doing that, you can't ever really cut out the full text of the Bible. And there are always passages in the Bible that you can interpret as justifying, you know, colonialism and slavery. But there's lots of passages that don't, right? And so there's always going to be a constant stream of Christians who are reformers and critics of colonialism, too, because you're working from the Bible. And a lot of people are always going to read the Bible and be like, oh, it says you shouldn't actually be shitty to people, right?

• 21:19Speaker 01

  Right. There's all that like, be good stuff.

• 21:22Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Obviously, other people interpret it differently, but you're always going to have some of those folks if it's based on the Bible. And likewise, the fairly new ideas of secular humanism had also fueled critiques of the, of the system, right? The people who are not like religiously motivated, but are, are early humanists are like, I don't know, like, like, seems bad to do slavery, seems bad to do colonialism, to oppress these people in like their own homes, right? And what eugenics provided was a way for men of science and men of faith who trusted science to argue that racial hierarchy is not cruel, but literally written into the laws of heredity. And thus, any kindness or equality that would allow lower races to reproduce and interbreed is actually cruel, because it leads to worse

• 22:04Robert Evans?

  catastrophe in the long term, right? And so, from what we might call an effective altruism standpoint, eugenics makes sense, you know? It, this is a, it's a moral justification that doesn't require Christianity, and that sort of allows us to, because we're not seeing them as people, we don't have to treat them as people, right? Now, you've got a scientific justification for that. And I know some people might think I'm being unfair by talking about, by comparing this to effective altruism, right? Taking a modern day ideology that on the surface is about maximizing the effectiveness of charitable giving and comparing it to eugenics. And the reason I am making this comparison is because a ton of modern day effective altruists love arguing that actually, everyone really believes in eugenics, if

• 22:49Robert Evans?

  you actually think about it, right? And that's the premise of a post I found on the Effective Altruism Forum from February of 2023, by someone with the account named Sentientist. The title was, "Most People Endorse Some Form of Eugenics." The article started with the case of a German couple, Susan Karalowski and Patrick Stubing, originally from Leipzig, Germany. Here's how the article introduces them. Susan and Patrick were a young German couple in love, but the German state never allowed Susan and Patrick to get married. Shockingly, Patrick was imprisoned for years because of a sexual relationship with Susan. You want to guess what was going on there?

• 23:25Speaker 02

  They look different.

• 23:27Robert Evans?

  No, they're brother and sister.

• 23:29Speaker 02

  Oh!

• 23:29Speaker 01

  Cousin fucking! It's all back to cousin fucking.

• 23:33Speaker 02

  God!

• 23:33Robert Evans?

  Right, right, right.

• 23:35Speaker 02

  I did not see that coming.

• 23:36Robert Evans?

  No, it's, it's, it's a crazy way to introduce an article that is about, I mean, yeah. So like, what's happened here is that Patrick and Susan were raised separately. They were like, they're brother and sister, but like, they were in foster care or something like that. And they had multiple children, four children in total, three of whom had severe birth defects. And those children are, yeah, are eventually taken away and placed with a foster family, because like, the state said that you guys are really irresponsible, and this is fucked up and bad, right?

• 24:08Speaker 02

  Fucking shit.

• 24:09Robert Evans?

  But that's not, in this fucking article where he's trying, and this, this guy is trying to argue that like, enforcing laws against incest is a form of eugenics, right? That's the, that's the argument of this. And the, the author starts by saying that like, yeah, okay, so their, you know, their children were taken away because they had birth defects and, you know, placed with a foster family. And then the article asks, "Why did Germany do all these terrible things to Susan and Patrick? Eugenics." And first off, this author doesn't think eugenics is terrible. And he, like, what he is saying is that, like, this is eugenics, and so everyone's okay with some degree of eugenics. And that's a lead point.

• 24:47Speaker 01

  Everybody's on the eugenics spectrum.

• 24:50Robert Evans?

  And you are supposed to take from that, that like, well, maybe I should consider other aspects of eugenics more reasonable than I do, right? Now, the reality is, Germany didn't do this because of eugenics. They did this because Patrick and Susan are brother and sister, and their relationship is incestuous, and that can lead to horrible birth defects. And they continued to have kids even after this was known, and like, they had been warned, and that's why Patrick, after his like, second kid, gets sentenced to 10 months in prison. Now, I'm not saying that's good or bad. I don't know enough about German law, or enough about all of the specifics of this prosecution. But the reason why this author frames the story the way he does is that he's trying to convince everyone that we all support a little eugenics, right?

• 25:32Speaker 01

  It's like a rhetorical game. It's like being like,

• 25:35Robert Evans?

  Right, exactly.

• 25:35Speaker 01

  Oh, like, the left are the real racists, because they're always talking about race. And it's like, well, what's the context? In which people are bringing up and talking about race. That's important. It's not just a word, saying a word, like, sure, I guess if you want to call this being pro-eugenics, if you, if you want to, if you want to redefine those things, I guess, yeah, I guess we're all a little bit of eugenics. Nobody wants to be cousin fuckers.

• 26:02Robert Evans?

  Yeah. His argument is like, well, we, we criminalize incest because of birth defects, right? Because it leads to higher birth defects, and that's eugenics. And that's idiotic, right? For one thing, like, people hate the idea of a pregnant mother abusing drugs and alcohol because it can cause birth defects and other harm to an eventual child. It's not eugenics to want to avoid a totally preventable case of fetal alcohol syndrome. That's not eugenics. That's just like not wanting a kid to suffer for no fucking reason, right?

• 26:29Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 26:31Robert Evans?

  Now, in this case, really, it's, it's not about eugenics, right? But still, the author of the article insists, "If you agree that people who are genetically related should not have children or should see a genetic counselor, congratulations, you're a eugenicist." And that's nonsense for a very simple reason. Eugenics is not about trying to prevent specific kids from having birth defects.

• 26:52Speaker 01

  It's the less popular Jeff Foxworthy bit that he had.

• 26:57Robert Evans?

  You might be a eugenicist. Yeah.

• 27:04Robert Evans?

  Eugenics, as Francis Galton would have been quick to point out, is the attempt to direct the improvement of an entire race, right? The fact that the goal is racial improvement is critical. The German state is not trying to improve the German race by stopping these people from having kids that are going to be at a massively higher risk of birth defects. My suspicion is, it's really expensive to the German state healthcare system, and they don't want to deal with that, right?

• 27:28Speaker 01

  I mean, every society, right, it's freedom versus safety, right? Where it's like, let's give people as much freedom as they can, while not like ruining safety. And so, countries have determined, like, listen, you just can't fuck your siblings, sorry.

• 27:42Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 27:42Speaker 01

  Like, we've done the math, and it's, it's more, it's more trouble than it's worth. As hot as your sibling is, it's just not worth it.

• 27:51Robert Evans?

  And it's, it's just not, it has nothing to do with trying to improve the race, right? That's not the goal here. You're just trying to stop children from suffering or save money for the healthcare system. Either way, it has nothing to do with eugenics. We'll talk a little bit more about the EA's and then get back to Galton, but first, ads.

• 28:10Speaker 05

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. I'm Melissa Jelton, and in my new podcast, What Happened to Her, I'm bringing you new stories and conversations every week. Stories about women whose deaths were too quickly ruled a suicide.

• 28:52Speaker 03

  She was starting to get worried and get scared for her safety.

• 28:59Speaker 05

  Stories of survival.

• 29:01Speaker 02

  The only difference between me and her, frankly, was a little bit of luck, because by all rights, I should be dead.

• 29:07Speaker 05

  Cases that everyone else called closed.

• 29:10Speaker 02

  They can't convict her, right? Like, she has so much evidence.

• 29:14Speaker 05

  These stories all start in the same place with a woman failed by a system that didn't believe her, that didn't protect her, that didn't see her. No child should ever experience that. And we were babies. She did all of these brave things and came out and spoke about it and he got a year.

• 29:33Speaker 06

  You never know who that devil is because he's wearing a disguise. Sometimes it's a police uniform.

• 29:38Speaker 05

  Listen to What Happened to Her on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 29:45Speaker 07

  Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin Unfiltered podcast?

• 29:49Speaker 04

  Here's what you missed.

• 29:50Speaker 06

  And the argument is, do you want to win? If you don't win, you have no power.

• 29:57Speaker 07

  It's real.

• 29:58Speaker 06

  Those are the very people who I always say vote against their own economic interests and they complain about the very thing they're seeing.

• 30:04Speaker 04

  It's raw.

• 30:05Speaker 06

  I knew that the issue of transgender athletes was not going well with a lot of black men.

• 30:13Speaker 04

  Roland Martin Unfiltered.

• 30:15Speaker 06

  I went off, I said, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Y'all gonna scream at Chanel, but you don't want to see a black luxury company in the same vein.

• 30:25Speaker 04

  Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the Black Information Network.

• 30:29Speaker 06

  12 seats, those are moving south. So if you Democrats, you don't wait to 2030, you better be hitting the ground going hard in the south now.

• 30:39Speaker 07

  And download Roland Martin Unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

• 30:43Speaker 04

  or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 30:47Robert Evans?

  And we're back. So I don't want to derail this episode too much by talking about effective altruism, but you should know that this article that I'm picking on is just one example of what we might call eugenics entryism in effective altruist spaces. And obviously, I think regular listeners have heard, I talked about EA a lot in the Sam Bankman Freed episodes. This is like a Silicon Valley heavy ideology that basically went from arguing, we should make sure charities are efficient before donating money to them, to arguing that like, well, hypothetically, the people who have not been born yet outnumber the people who have. So that means that like, it's actually justifiable to like, destroy anyone who tries to slow down AI development, because it'll obviously be better for the people who haven't been born, right? That's a thing some EA people will say, right?

• 31:31Robert Evans?

  Obviously, it's a, it's a big group, but like, that's the folks I'm talking about. And a lot of them are into fucking eugenics, right? EA people are often fascinated by transhumanism. And the guy who first popularized the concept of transhumanism in the 1950s was Aldous Huxley's brother Julian. Julian Huxley was also president of the British Eugenics Society, who owed their existence to Francis Galton. And there are eugenicists today among the most prominent effective altruists. Per an article in New Humanist Magazine by Peter Ward, quote, "There is an obsession with IQ and intelligence among the community that suggests some are at least flirting with eugenicist ideas. In 2023, a former EA member reported that the Center for Effective Altruism had tested a new way of measuring the value of people using a metric called Potential Expected

• 32:15Robert Evans?

  Long-Term Instrumental Value, or PELTIV. People with IQs of less than 120 would have PELTIV points deducted, while those working for EA organizations or on AI would rank higher." You know, you're the good guy when you're trying to figure out the value of a human mathematically.

• 32:31Speaker 01

  Yeah, person number. Nice little guide for a person.

• 32:35Robert Evans?

  And it's the same thing to his Galton of like, and obviously, people who are interested in the same things that I am are the most valuable, right? Like clearly, anyone in EA, because they're thinking about the future.

• 32:45Speaker 01

  That's what it keeps coming back to, which is like these objective, like intellectual minds being like, I have determined that everything that we already believed was good and right. And it's good to be cruel, actually.

• 32:57Robert Evans?

  Yeah, this is actually the only kind of human that you should be. Nick Bostrom, founder of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, is a prominent modern leader in the effective altruist community, who was often considered the father of long-termism, which is that idea that future hypothetical unborn people ought to have more moral weight than the smaller number of real living people in crisis who exist right now, right? Well, we can help people starving today.

• 33:20Speaker 01

  Elon Musk being like, we must go to Mars, no matter how many slaves we throw at this idea, where it's that idea that in the long run, this thing will be good, actually.

• 33:30Robert Evans?

  Yeah, it's actually evil to feed people who are starving in like, the Sudan right now, because that money could go to getting us to Mars and that'll save humanity in the future. So it's evil to help poor people if that money could go to Mars. So yeah, I talked about Nick Bostrom, the founder, like, some people call him the founder of, of long-termism. He's a major EA figure. Philosopher Emil P. Torres, a former EA guy himself, recently published a 1996 email Nick Bostrom had sent, where he insisted, quote, "Blacks are more stupid than whites." Per that article, Bostrom apologized, but the statement caused a scandal. Oxford shut down his Future of Humanity Institute in April this year, which said it was based on a review of the best structures for conducting our academic research.

• 34:14Robert Evans?

  So Francis Galton used different data to make basically the same argument that Bostrom and a lot of EA's do, which is that IQ is what matters. It's the best judge of someone's worth, right? Or one, it's one of the most important judges of someone's worth as a person, right? Because IQ definitely measures real intelligence and isn't just like a measure of certain kinds of intelligence. And is also, so basically, it's the only thing that matters, right?

• 34:36Speaker 01

  Right.

• 34:37Robert Evans?

  Yeah, and, but it's not just that. It's again, the, the most valuable people don't just have the highest IQs, they're also working in AI or NEA, right? They're members of my community, my subculture. The guys I hang out with are more valuable people, right? Like, that's, I, it all comes down to the same thing. That's a really important bit to grasp, regardless of the science.

• 34:58Speaker 01

  It's like how it's incredible how my cat, out of all the cats, happens to be the cutest, like, in the world. I've done studies about this. I looked into it and she's the cutest and the smartest cat.

• 35:13Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 35:14Speaker 01

  And if, and she's sexy to other cats, too. She's the hottest cat. And that's what I figured out through extensive studies.

• 35:21Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 35:22Speaker 01

  It's just a wild coincidence that's my cat.

• 35:24Robert Evans?

  Yeah. So Galton substituted judges and scientists for EA's and AI coders, because those didn't exist yet, right? But his beliefs were otherwise identical. And while we focus so much, and while we focused most so far on the racism of his ideology, it's here I should note something about what Galton meant when he was talking about race, right? Because race is a very different concept in the 1870s and 80s than it is even like 20 or 30 years later, at the start of the 20th century. Susan Schumacher identified three different kinds of race that Galton would refer to in his writings. Quote, "The first is in a literary sense, when he makes statements such as, poets are

• 36:05Robert Evans?

  a sensuous erotic race, exceedingly irregular in their way of life, and judges are by no means an unfertile race." Banton, another scholar of Galton, also argues that he uses race in a taxonomic sense, as a synonym for genus when he writes of the human race, as a synonym for species when he writes that "the American Indian race is divided into many varieties," or as a synonym for variety itself when he writes about the race of the Irish Celts or of the English race. However, he believes that Galton's conception of race is better understood in line with his later thinking about heredity. Thus, in 1892, when Galton wrote a new preface to Hereditary Genius, he wrote in terms of "the question of race," where Banton believes he is using race as a synonym for heredity. Fancher also maintains that Galton's understanding of race should be considered in line with

• 36:50Robert Evans?

  his beliefs about heredity when Galton writes as a definition that race is "the constitutional peculiarities transmitted by inheritance."

• 36:58Speaker 01

  And that's deeply confusing.

• 37:01Robert Evans?

  He's not at all.

• 37:03Speaker 01

  He was real loose with the term race.

• 37:05Robert Evans?

  A poet can be a race sometimes, to Galton, right?

• 37:08Speaker 01

  But he's doing race science. That's, hmm, that's bad science.

• 37:12Robert Evans?

  And again, they don't have a modern understanding of genetics and heredity, right? And neither do his critics. No one really does at this, well, one guy kind of does at this time, but nobody else really does for a while yet. And as a result, all of his underlying assumptions and all of the underlying assumptions behind eugenic science are fundamentally flawed from the get-go, because it's based initially on an understanding of race that has nothing at all to do with genetics or inheritance, right? Gregor Mendel, who was also active through the mid to late 1800s, is credited with discovering inherited and dominant recessive traits using pea plants, right? He's how we learned about like dominant recessive genes. Galton doesn't know about that when he's talking about eugenics at first, like his,

• 37:55Robert Evans?

  most of his writing on eugenics is pre any understanding of like dominant and recessive traits, when he talks about like breeding and the like. And part of why is that Mendel, you know, his foundings, I think it's around like the 1880s or such, that he's like, coming up with a lot of this stuff? But his findings are initially ignored by the great scientists of the day, including Galton, and don't reemerge until around 1900. As a result, when Galton plotted out how states should encourage exceptional people to breed, he hasn't, he doesn't know that recessive traits are a thing. This is why, for example, while he would have insisted his disabled sister not procreate, it would never have occurred to him to limit his father from doing so, or himself, even though it's very likely that either or both of them carry genes that might have passed

• 38:40Robert Evans?

  this disability down to future children, right? He doesn't understand that at all. He thinks like, she's got something wrong with her, but that could, that couldn't have anything to do with my father, because he made me too, and I'm perfect, right?

• 38:50Speaker 01

  Bad at racism, like he's doing a bad job at his racism.

• 38:53Robert Evans?

  He's bad at being a sci, he's bad at. His knowledge of science is incomplete, right?

• 38:58Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, when we, I mean, we already covered it, but I don't remember him going to like, a lot of school. I, I, I do remember him killing monkeys.

• 39:08Robert Evans?

  He's killing a lot of monkeys. This is the era of the gentleman scientist, though, right? Like Gregor Mendel, who does discover a lot of this stuff, is like a monk who's just kind of fucking around with pea plants.

• 39:18Speaker 01

  Right. They're inventing science while.

• 39:20Robert Evans?

  Right. So there's, there's not like a lot of, there are colleges, but there's a lot of science should get to be self-taught, right? Like Galton, it would have been hard for him to have known, but it is important that like, he's, he's completely wrong from the get-go. The fact that he would be like, well, someone like my father should be encouraged to breed, and also like, someone like my sister shouldn't be allowed to, is a basic fundamental misunderstanding of like, heredity, right? Galton, the atheist, had by the 1870s and 80s appointed himself a scientific priest overseeing the collective brilliance, if not the soul, of the British people. And he becomes in this period much more, less concerned with stuff happen, with like overseas stuff, with like colonies and like these foreign people. Like, he still cares about replacing

• 40:03Robert Evans?

  or, or halting the breeding of inferior races. But he becomes mostly focused on what's happening in England, because he becomes, he can, he, he decides that racial degeneration is an emergency, that actually, a white genocide might be. He doesn't quite think of it as a white genocide, because it's really not about white to him, as much as it is about class. But he thinks an idiocracy is gonna happen. All of the stupid people are going to breed out the eminent men, the intelligent people, and the quality of the English race is going to decline because we've let fools breed too rapidly, right? And poor people, primarily poor people, right? Galton's chief obsession from this period of his life on is urban decay. There is, in,

• 40:47Robert Evans?

  in early industrial London, a teeming mass of homeless and indigent people, folks in madhouses and poorhouses on the streets of London, and he decides that's gonna have to change. He cannot stand seeing homeless people, because that is evidence that there's like, that is evidence that the genetic quality of, of his, of his race is being degraded. If these people are alive and have the potential to breed, right? He's horrified by that. That like, a homeless person could make kids, someone in a poorhouse could just be having kids? That's the biggest threat in the world to him, because he believes you can't, you shouldn't ethically give those kids any resources. You need to let them die. So that's a tragedy, obviously, it's completely unavoidable. And also, that will mean less resources for like, rich people who are smart, right?

• 41:29Speaker 01

  How does he imagine the race? Like, I guess, that idea of looking around and going like, look at all these poor people, and, you know, it's gonna be, all the smart people are gonna disappear. And it's like, but you've got, the human race has been doing pretty good so far. So what do you think it's been in the past?

• 41:46Robert Evans?

  Well, he does have an explanation for that, right? Because he's looking at Darwin's Origin of Species, right? And Darwin had argued in that, that like, obviously, natural selection favors those who are most, most fit, because they tend to out, because they tend to outbreed the less fit. Galton comes in and says like, well, that's true, but because of modern civilization and modern medicine, we've kind of broken that cycle.

• 42:10Speaker 01

  Right.

• 42:10Robert Evans?

  And now, people who are less fit are breeding more, because like, intelligent people often decide to wait, or, you know, they, he had a big issue with like, the church during like, the medieval period, putting a bunch of smart people, making them monks and priests, because then they couldn't breed. And that was a disaster for the collective intelligence of Europe, right? That's a big thing, one of Galton's major issues with religion. And his big, like, he argues that now, natural selection often favors people who are less fit, and that these, quote, "weakly and incapable men will cause the degeneration of society if allowed to breed." It's not quite white genocide, it's more of a smart genocide.

• 42:46Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's, no, it's funny how every generation, like, you can go and find articles of people complaining about like, kids are reading too many books these days, that's gonna rot their brains. Where it's like, there's always this idea of modern technology, and it's very funny, especially now, that a lot of these guys who are like, what is it, good times create weak men? Those guys are the same guys being like, also, I invented this machine that can think for us and parent for us.

• 43:15Robert Evans?

  So, Galton is primarily, the thing he comes to primarily blame for like, breaking the natural cycle of things, right? For making natural selection not favor the strongest and actually favor the weak, social programs, right? That is the, the unnatural thing that has caused, that has like shattered the, the system that ensures that only the best procreate. Because we have welfare programs that like, help poor people survive and like, feed starving kids, that's going to ruin the species, right? That's his main argument.

• 43:47Speaker 01

  It's very funny that these people never calculate, you know, you talked about how like, the Bible has these baked in morality, where it's like, you know, be good to people. I would argue that that's baked into our existence, and the fact that it's clearly part of our survival, that if we see another person starving, we wanna help that person? Like, that is a, it's natural part of how we progressed, but they never factor that in.

• 44:16Robert Evans?

  No, and there's a lot of documentation of like altruism in the animal kingdom, right? It's not just human beings, multiple species of it, that there's no other real explanation for them, like, oh, I guess they decided to do a nice thing for this other animal, right? And like, yeah, there's, that's a broader topic of discussion that we can get into, but there's a, and, you know, a part of the proof of it, of like, the, and I would never wanna reduce someone's like, I, I don't think there's, it's moral to be like, oh, someone's good because they have evolutionary value. But like, if you wanna look at further evidence of like, the evolutionary value of, of like, within Galton's own sort of life story, right? You have an example of this person who is not like physically fit because of an inborn, like, illness that they had no control over, but who is still

• 45:00Robert Evans?

  massively contributes to her family and to her society, that, and Galton even recognizes that. He's capable of seeing in, in like, a specific instant, oh, well, this is a person who contributed to society as much as anybody, despite being disabled. But he still concludes that, on the whole, disabled people are, are worth very little.

• 45:18Speaker 01

  And that's the thing, is like, everybody has evolutionary value, except for Joe Rogan. Like, it's, it's like, everybody is worth helping, because everybody has something to offer the world.

• 45:30Robert Evans?

  We're a species. Yeah, that's how it works. Yeah. Speaking of things that work, the sponsors of our podcast.

• 45:40Speaker 05

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. I'm Melissa Jelton, and in my new podcast, What Happened to Her, I'm bringing you new stories and conversations every week. Stories about women whose deaths were too quickly ruled a suicide.

• 46:21Speaker 05

  She was starting to get worried and get scared for her safety. Stories of survival. The only difference between me and her, frankly, was a little bit of luck, because by all rights, I should be dead. Cases that everyone else called closed. They can't convict her, right? Like, she has so much evidence. These stories all start in the same place, with a woman failed by a system that didn't believe her, that didn't protect her, that didn't see her. No child should ever experience that. And we were babies. She did all of these brave things and came out and spoke about it, and he got a year. You never know who that devil is, because he's wearing a disguise. Sometimes it's

• 47:06Speaker 05

  a police uniform. Listen to What Happened to Her on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 47:14Speaker 07

  Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin Unfiltered podcast?

• 47:17Speaker 04

  Here's what you missed.

• 47:18Speaker 06

  And the argument is, do you want to win? If you don't win, you have no power.

• 47:26Speaker 07

  It's real.

• 47:27Speaker 06

  Those are the very people who I always say, vote against their own economic interests, and they complain about the very thing they're receiving.

• 47:33Speaker 04

  It's raw.

• 47:34Speaker 06

  I knew that the issue of transgender athletes was not going well with a lot of black men.

• 47:42Speaker 04

  Roland Martin Unfiltered.

• 47:44Speaker 06

  I went off, I said, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Y'all gonna scream at Chanel, but you don't wanna see a black luxury company in the same van.

• 47:54Speaker 04

  Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the Black Information Network.

• 47:58Speaker 06

  12 seats, those are moving south. So if you Democrats, you don't wait to 2030, you better be hitting the ground, going hard in the South now.

• 48:08Speaker 07

  And download Roland Martin Unfiltered on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 48:16Robert Evans?

  And we're back. So we should talk a little about about the science of like genetic inheritance and the impact it has on intelligence, right? Because obviously like heredity has a lot to do with intelligence, right? You know, like that's, that's, that's not a controversial thing to say. But also it's not the only or the primary thing. And it's certainly inaccurate to say that like nurture can't do any, which is what Galton believes, right? Because he doesn't get genetics and he's based all these conclusions that just like looking, graphing all of the rich and prominent people that he thinks are eminent men and kind of estimating how many of them had successful kids, right? Like that's, that's all of his science. And that's like a, that's a really bad, we know that that's nonsense now.

• 48:59Robert Evans?

  A 2018 study I found noted that, quote, "Across studies, parents' education correlates 0.30 with children's intelligence," implying that it accounts for 9% of the variance in children's intelligence, right? And that, obviously, that doesn't say anything about heredity. We're talking about like parents' education. But that does suggest that Galton's obsessive focus on the education level achieved by someone's parents as a predictor of their kid's success is extremely short sighted, right? Because that does not, like, we know that that does not like guarantee or doom a kid if their parents are like, having educated parents doesn't mean you'll be educated. Having dumb parent or having, having uneducated parents doesn't mean you won't get an education. There's some impact there, but it occurs for like 9% of the variance in children's intelligence, right?

• 49:43Speaker 01

  In theory, there was a time-

• 49:44Robert Evans?

  Whereas Galton is almost everything, damn.

• 49:46Speaker 01

  Where being more educated got you a better job and not just student debt. And that might help your kid down the line. I feel like that's less of a case now.

• 49:56Robert Evans?

  Yeah, I mean, and we probably, it's probably too recently that change has happened for there to be much to show from it, right? Modern science, science has also shown that the heritability of intelligence is vastly more complicated than Galton believed. For one thing, the heritable elements of intelligence are, per one researcher, research paper I found, extremely polygenic, which means there's no single like smart gene. And it's part of why you often have cases, people are like super geniuses whose parents are, and whose family lives, like, you know, normal people. There wasn't much of a sign of that in the family before, and then suddenly you get this mega genius. And it's because, I don't know, both parents had like some interlocking sets of genes that, that wound up, you know, influencing the intelligence of this kid in a way that's

• 50:38Robert Evans?

  not predictable and certainly not something that we could have predicted based on the family history of the people who had that genius kid, right?

• 50:45Speaker 01

  Yeah, the one smart sperm, the one smart sperm wiggled in there.

• 50:48Robert Evans?

  Yeah, that's just not how it works. Identical twins with similar educations will differ by as much as six IQ points in either direction, and identical twins raised separately attribute more than twice that variability, like variability, like a 15-point IQ difference up or down, which shows, again, like a, there's a, that's a very significant degree in which like nurture or like your actual environment impacts things. Because these are people who are genetically identical, and there's a 15-point gap in intelligence based on them being like raised in different areas with access to different kinds of education systems and different kinds of parents who have different tactics, right? That's a pretty massive gap.

• 51:28Speaker 01

  Yeah, there's like documentaries about like identical twins being raised by different people and stuff like that, and how vastly different your life is depending on-

• 51:37Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Yeah, intelligence is complicated and it's not nearly as simple as Galton thought. Now, I should note, because I brought up twins, Galton is the guy who starts doing that pretty much. He is like the founder of twin studies as a major thing in science. One thing that's happening in the background here, a lot of these studies that I'm quoting and books that I'm citing, Galton is kind of inventing a lot of the, and helping to invent, other people are doing it, he's in dialogue with them. But he is part of like how we come up with the way of how to do like a scientific study and how to like analyze statistics and like gather data from a population. Galton does have a large role in inventing a lot of that. He's inventing it to do bad science and racism, but like he is influential in that process, right? In part by creating the idea of twin studies.

• 52:22Robert Evans?

  Now, he doesn't know what's going on genetically with the twins that he's studying, like they, they, because they don't know what like DNA back then, right?

• 52:31Speaker 01

  Right.

• 52:32Robert Evans?

  So there's a lot of, but I would say all of the twin studies I have read that he has conducted had very questionable conclusions, right?

• 52:38Speaker 01

  I gotta, I, I have to imagine twins have had a hard time historically-

• 52:43Robert Evans?

  Hard time. A lot of scientists have fucked with a lot of twins. Well, in the preface of the 1892 edition of his book on hereditary genius, Galton described race mixing as one of the chief causes of social degeneration. He was particularly concerned by this point, that breeding peoples who were far from each other geographically would create weak and short-lived children. By far, he means that like, well, an African and a Euro, and a, and a Briton, right, are far from each other, and so their genetics must not be compatible, and, and by necessity, they'll create unhealthy children. Now, trying to answer the question of like, how is there our health, are there health differences between like mixed-race kids and kids who are not mixed-race? That's an incredibly complicated question.

• 53:25Robert Evans?

  Um, but one thing we can do, there are some very basic ways to prove Galton wrong here, right? Just in terms of like the basic level of like health and wellness that mixed-race people have, right? For example, people of European descent who carry genes for cystic fibrosis are less likely to pass them on when they have a child with somewhat of non-European descent. Because of the way like recessive traits work, if you, if someone who's like a carrier for cystic fibrosis and European has a kid with, you know, somebody who's like Chinese or whatever, right? That kid is less likely to, to get the genes for cystic fibrosis, right? People of Ashkenazi descent are likelier to carry genes for Tay-Sachs disease, but less likely to pass them on when they mix with other populations, right?

• 54:08Robert Evans?

  So these are, and there's a number of genetic illnesses like this that are more common in people of like one ethnic group or another, that when they like breed with people of other ethnic groups, it's less likely that they pass on that genetic disease, right?

• 54:21Speaker 01

  Right. So in theory, like if you wanted to build a stronger future generation, it's just everybody, bone, everybody, right? Like that's the secret.

• 54:30Robert Evans?

  I mean, it's a good, there's certain benefits to it, right? Including like there's some benefits to your immune system. I want to quote from an article I found on the doctor guide online. "The immune system benefits greatly from genetic diversity. One key component is the human leukocyte antigen, HLA system, a group of genes responsible for helping the body recognize foreign invaders like viruses and bacteria. People with more varied HLA genes tend to have stronger immune responses because their bodies can detect a wider range of pathogens. Mixed individuals usually inherit a richer set of HLA alleles compared to those from genetically homogeneous populations," right? And that doesn't mean mixed-race people are healthier always or live longer lives, right? There's so many other factors there, right? It just means Galton is wrong. There's zero reason to believe that, that mixed-race kids are like sicklier or have

• 55:15Robert Evans?

  shorter lifespans, right? We just know that there's no evidence of that. And there's quite a bit of evidence that in some cases it can reduce the odds of certain illnesses, right? Anyway, it's just important to point out that he's wrong there. "By 1892, Galton had started focusing his eugenic obsessions on two groups within English society who worried him: the carriers of congenital defects and people of color who might or actively were interbreeding with the white European population." This is like very white-genocided Jason. Again, he's more concerned with like smart people being genocide, but obviously, he doesn't think that non-white people can really be smart usually. So it does, it is the same thing. He's just not framing it quite the same way.

• 55:58Robert Evans?

  "For obvious reasons, latter, the latter people, non-white people who are breeding with white people, were of the greatest concern to Galton. His, his conclusion by the 1890s is that nurture has almost nothing to do with outcome. Savages, he wrote, even when raised by European families, were, quote, 'incapable of progress after the first few years of their lives. While white people could learn and grow, non-white people lost that ability after a while and could only be educated for a limited period of time.'" That's a really convenient thing to believe when you're like, want these people to start working when they're like 14 or so, or younger for you, right?

• 56:32Speaker 01

  That's the thing, it's, it's, you're saying like, it's not, it's not being identified as racism, it's just that racism is an ingredient in the larger equation. Like, it's not racist, not because it isn't racist, but because just it's the, the sum of its parts.

• 56:48Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 56:49Speaker 01

  Includes racism in it. It's already baked into it.

• 56:54Robert Evans?

  A lot of his biographers will, will argue that class was a bigger thing for Galton than race and his, and his obsession with class also like was seen in his obsession with race and fueled his obsession with race, but it all started because he's like a rich guy who thinks poor people are gross and scary, right?

• 57:10Speaker 01

  Right.

• 57:11Robert Evans?

  Like, that is the root of all of this, right? And I do think that that's broadly accurate, not to minimize his racism. I just think this does start with class, right? And like the people he's seeing in the Middle East and in Africa, right? They're mostly poor people, right? Like the locals that he's talking about so terribly. And he says very similar things about poor people he sees in London. And he often will, as we'll talk about, he'll compare them to the poor, to the, the Herreros that he saw in South Africa, right? Now, I don't think it's fruitful to like bust every single myth Galton has here because you know, they're untrue, but it is important that like, important to note that like, there was a lot of evidence that everything he's saying about like, well, you can't educate, you know, black people, right? Past a certain point, they can't learn more, you know, that, that, that window closes

• 57:56Robert Evans?

  quickly. There's a ton of educated black men who are writing books and articles that are being read internationally by this point in time. Frederick Douglass exists during his lifetime and is very famous, right? And Frederick Douglass is not the only black man who had been enslaved and became a prominent writer and political organizer. James William Pennington, also born a slave, went to fucking Yale, the first black man to go to Yale. He was allowed to attend classes, but forbidden from formally graduating, although he was recognized in 2023 as having completed the coursework necessary to have gotten a degree. Solomon Northrop published his account, 12 Years a Slave in 1853. And in Galton's own England, Olada Equiano published a harrowing account of his own youth

• 58:37Robert Evans?

  as a slave and life as an explorer in 1791, a century before Galton wrote this shit, right? And I've read Equiano's book and several works by Galton. I'll tell you who struck me as a more intelligent, impressive person. And it's not the fucker who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. It's the guy who was stolen into slavery as a child, became free, wrote a bestselling book, became a major abolitionist organizer and was one of the first people to explore the Arctic, right? Like, I just find that more impressive than a rich guy who stayed rich.

• 59:07Speaker 01

  Guy you want to talk to at the party, yeah.

• 59:08Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Galton never read Olada's book. Doing so would have proved his very theory a lie. Instead, he began drawing conclusions from the physical characteristics he's observed in foreign peoples like the hot and tots, the Herrero, and similar characteristics in the urban poor in London. He concluded that Africans and British criminals had a lot of traits in common. Quote, "The greater part of the hot and tots about me had that peculiar set of features, which is so characteristic of bad characters in England and so general among prisoners that it is usually, I believe, known by the name of the felon face. I mean, they have prominent cheekbones, bullet shaped head, cowering but restless eyes and heavy sensual lips, and adding to this a shacking, and added to this a shackling dress and manner."

• 59:52Robert Evans?

  And the felon face is a concept, it looks like cops kind of come up with this and like, well, you can tell who's a criminal, in part because that way they don't have to tell who's a criminal.

• 1:00:00Speaker 01

  In fairness, cop face is definitely a thing.

• 1:00:07Robert Evans?

  That's a facial expression.

• 1:00:08Speaker 01

  There's many cop faces out there.

• 1:00:09Robert Evans?

  Yeah, yeah. There is, there is cop face. Some people are typically cops, yeah. I'll show you felon face in a second.

• 1:00:16Speaker 02

  Do they actually like use felon face as like a, as like a piece of evidence?

• 1:00:20Robert Evans?

  Oh, Sophie, you're not, you're not, yeah. Oh, they're trying, he's gonna try to, right?

• 1:00:24Speaker 02

  He's gonna try to, yeah. Cause it, it just reminds me of like, early on when we were doing that episode when they, the gene pattern like way of doing evidence. It's like on that level where it's like, absolutely not.

• 1:00:37Robert Evans?

  Yeah. So, I mean, what, part of what's going on here with felon face is that the 1870s to 1900 are a period of massive growth. This is like a period of massive growth in the science of photography, right? Camera technology leaps forward at a rate that is probably similar to how we feel about how cell phones have advanced during our lifetimes, right? You're going from like, we've got this box that you have to like sit still by for like a long period of time and it kind of looks like shit to like, people can just like travel with like cameras and take pictures of shit all over the world, right? It's, it's a massive change and Galton becomes obsessed with cameras, right? He loves photography and he starts working with Sir Edmund de Kane, the inspector of prisons for England, who provides him, or for London, who provided him with photographs

• 1:01:21Robert Evans?

  of convicts from several institutions. And before we go any further, I, I need to expose a flaw in Galton's research, which is that he is basing, cause he's going to try to decide, find the physical features that show someone's a criminal, so that you can predict crime by being like, well, if someone has this sort of face structure, that means they're going to be a criminal and we should do something about them before they have a chance to hurt people, right?

• 1:01:42Speaker 01

  It's very funny, cause I think we've start, we, people have tried this recently with like AI shit.

• 1:01:47Robert Evans?

  Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. They, we're going right back to it. Yeah. This is, this is absolutely something that AI is going to accelerate again.

• 1:01:53Speaker 02

  Is he like, that person has high cheekbones? Felon face.

• 1:01:57Robert Evans?

  Stuff like that.

• 1:01:57Speaker 02

  What's the deal?

• 1:01:58Robert Evans?

  Stuff like that. Yeah, we'll get into it, Sophie. Yes, it is stuff like that. But, but before we get into it, I, I need to point out a massive flaw in his like underlying assumptions, which is that police and judges in Victorian England are even worse at their jobs than their modern equivalents. Innocent people are convicted of crimes regularly in this period of time, as they are today, but even more regularly back then. And they're also, cause he's also taking pictures of like people in mental institutions to try to determine, well, what sort of facial fixtures, features mean that some, like show insanity so that we can know who's going to go crazy before they do, right? You can tell it, right? You can diagnose them just by looking at them. He believes that should be possible, right? Cause he believes that there's, that the, the face reflects these mental characteristics that are inherent to people. And one of the problems with this is that people often wind up in mental, mental institutions

• 1:02:42Robert Evans?

  in this period of time for reasons that have nothing to do with mental health. In a 2012 book on mental illness in late Victorian Britain, Philip Cohen related this story. "The daughter of an architect, a socialist and a feminist, announced her intention to live openly outside of wedlock with James Sullivan, a member of the working class and secretary of a local London branch of the SD, a local socialist party. Cohabiting with Sullivan would express her commitment to socialism and her related rejection of the institution of marriage. But such behavior crossed rigid lines of class and religion, not to mention conventional morality. Therefore, her father and two of her brothers exploited the English Lunacy Act of 1890 to launch a preemptive strike by having her involuntarily committed to an asylum, aptly called the priory, on an emergency basis, i.e. not to exceed seven days, based on the

• 1:03:27Robert Evans?

  statement of a single physician. This temporary commitment was the, was the intended prelude to a long-term involuntary institutionalization." Now, the good news is this woman is freed. Eventually there's like a public outcry and she does get out, but that shows you what, and first, and that 1890 law is something that Galton had lobbied for. He was very much in favor of getting crazy people off the street and locking them up, partly so that he could study them. But like, that's a lot of people who wind up in asylums.

• 1:03:53Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:03:54Robert Evans?

  You can bribe to have someone put there, you know?

• 1:03:56Speaker 01

  Yeah. Any study based on people who've been in prison or institutionalized in general, if the study is to determine what type of person has that, like even if you boil it down to like shoplifting, like if you're like, we took all the mug shots of shoplifters, therefore we have determined what a shoplifter looks like. The problem is the data always starts with humans. It, it's the same with AI, right? Training AI, it always starts with human error. So what you're actually getting is, we looked at what cops most likely like see for a shop, like who, what type of person cops approach first.

• 1:04:34Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 1:04:34Speaker 01

  Or like that people suspect of shoplifting. It doesn't give you, here's what all the shoplifters look like. It's just, here's all the shoplifters that got caught for shoplifting for various reasons, including the biases of the people around them. It just doesn't work. Like especially the older the, the data, obviously from this time, like it's a, it's a nightmare starting point.

• 1:04:58Robert Evans?

  Yeah. So Galton ignored the possibility that the justice system and the mental health system might be flawed and instead considered these photos of criminals to be the best kind of evidence. He grouped them by crime and expected their physical features would provide clues to the crimes that they'd committed. Per Schumacher, quote, "In the first instance, by sight, he established to his own satisfaction that men who committed larceny possessed large foreheads and small skulls, and burglars were inclined to be squinty faced. However, once he subjected the photographs to his composite process, the results did not give him the outcome he had anticipated. Instead of identifying the criminal, he determined that he had instead revealed the face of a man who was likely to fall into criminal behavior." So he starts by being like, I should be able to determine who is a criminal by like compositing

• 1:05:42Robert Evans?

  all of the faces of criminals together and then like looking at which guy in this lineup, best match is that? And that doesn't actually work at all. So instead, what he realizes that like, well, this guy who I identified as likely a criminal because his face looked like this composite of other burglars, he hadn't committed a crime yet, but he's gonna.

• 1:06:00Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:06:01Robert Evans?

  Right.

• 1:06:01Speaker 01

  He, he.

• 1:06:02Robert Evans?

  I figured out pre-crime.

• 1:06:03Speaker 01

  Well, he must be a future criminal.

• 1:06:05Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 1:06:06Speaker 01

  Therefore, the test is correct.

• 1:06:08Robert Evans?

  Is good. And I gotta show you some of these. So he's gonna put up on the Netflix now, some of these, these composite portraits that he's doing. And there's the, if you can't see it, this is like a, a, a bunch of different, like a dozen or so pictures of guys that are all like composited from like bunches of people at the bottom. You've got like portraits at the top of, uh, men convicted of, convicted of crimes of violence. And then there, there, several of the portraits are combined in the bottom to, and it just kinda makes blurry looking people, right? Like the all seven guy just has like a, but he looks like a weird AI composite, cause he's just got like eight fingers and stuff.

• 1:06:45Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:06:45Robert Evans?

  Like, I'm not sure what you're supposed to get out of this, but Galton is obsessed with it. Like, he is convinced this is the new pre-crime. If we just figure out crime face, then we can stop crime before it happens, you know?

• 1:06:59Robert Evans?

  And it's, it's just silly nonsense from the jump. He is never able to, none of his own research ever like backs any of this up as much as he thinks. He's constantly frustrated by like, okay, but like it's, this is what their faces are supposed to be. And yet, when I try to actually like catch a criminal using these techniques, it never works.

• 1:07:16Speaker 01

  Right. What is the science here of like, does their larger foreheads make them more aerodynamic for the crimes? Like, what's the evolutionary purpose of having crime face?

• 1:07:28Robert Evans?

  I'm sure some of this is descended from phrenology, you know, like that that, that certainly influences this, right? And some of it's just, he has always been, if you remember back to his explorations in Africa, he's like measuring ladies he thinks are hot on the sly with a sextant from a distance. He's always been obsessed with measuring people. And he, this is what he really starts to professionalize measuring people in the late 1800s. He calls it anthropometric techniques. And these are ways, he, he wants to categorize and help predict criminal behavior by taking on a lot of data about the physical characteristics of criminals and people with like mental illnesses. And once he starts making these composites, it has a horror, it doesn't actually help find

• 1:08:11Robert Evans?

  any criminals. It never like works out scientifically, but he becomes obsessed with seeing criminals in every crowd in London. Once he knows like, this is the face of a robber, this is the face of a rapist, this is the face of a murderer. Anytime he's around a crowd, he's like, my God, the sheer number of maniacs and criminals, London is overwhelmed with a flood of crime and violence. Because like, these people have faces that look kinda like his weird composites.

• 1:08:34Speaker 01

  He should have.

• 1:08:35Robert Evans?

  That means they're destined to crime.

• 1:08:37Speaker 01

  I wish he had AI. It's weird to say, I wish this guy had AI.

• 1:08:41Robert Evans?

  Taken to it.

• 1:08:41Speaker 01

  It's just, he seems like the kind of person, if you gave him Claude, uh, he, it would, it would actually help us out in the long run, cause he'd like invent his own type of math and then light himself on fire. And then we wouldn't have to deal with this guy.

• 1:08:53Robert Evans?

  Yeah, Claude might have talked him into fucking ending the problem before. Yeah. Yeah. Claude might have taken him out of the gene pool, so to speak.

• 1:09:01Speaker 01

  That's what I'm thinking.

• 1:09:03Robert Evans?

  So Galton starts getting increasingly paranoid and obsessive after this period of time. In another one of his books, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, in 1883, published in 1883, he wrote, "The proportion of weakly and misshapen individuals is not to be estimated by those we meet in the streets. The worst cases are out of sight. We should parade before our mind's eye, the inmates of the lunatic, idiot, and pauper asylums, the prisoners, the patients in hospitals, the sufferers at home, the crippled, and the congenitally blind. Our human civilized stock is far more weak through congenital imperfection than that of any other species of animal, whether wild or domestic." That's not based on science. He's not doing studies of like animals and how many of them have congenital birth defects or any of that. He's not even attempting to. He's just declaring

• 1:09:46Robert Evans?

  this. He's not even, there's no statistic basis, for, for all that he's the stats guy, this is just like what feels right to him, based on kinda looking, looking at people, right? Like, that, that's all this is.

• 1:09:57Speaker 01

  And he's very smart, so.

• 1:09:58Robert Evans?

  He's very smart. He's a really smart guy.

• 1:09:59Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:10:01Robert Evans?

  And that, this also points out something. The fact that he is including the poor houses, people who are literally being locked up just cause they're in debt to like an insane asylum, does reemphasize the point that like, this is about class, right? Eugenics is hugely about class. Galton's inferior people aren't just the mentally and the physically ill, they're the poor and people convicted of crimes. In other words, they're people of a lower class than Francis Galton. As biographer Michael Bullwer noted, Galton also used this book to expand his advocacy for a eugenics society. Quote, "He suggested that a scheme of marks for family merit should be devised, that ancestral qualities as well as personal qualities could be taken into account. Individuals with a high composite score should then be encouraged to marry early by the provision of endowments as well as by a sense of pride. The attitude

• 1:10:45Robert Evans?

  of mind that I should expect to predominate amongst tho, among those who had undeniable claims to rank as members of an exceptionally gifted race would be akin to that of the modern possessors of ancestral property or hereditary rank. A man of good race would shrink from spoiling it by a lower marriage." And the fact that he's, he's looking at high race as the same as like inheriting a high property, right? It's all, it's all class, you know?

• 1:11:09Speaker 01

  Yeah, which is the dumbest thing to judge people based off. I mean, it's bad to be racist.

• 1:11:16Robert Evans?

  Their dad was rich. Yeah.

• 1:11:17Speaker 01

  But like, class seems like the most arbitrary.

• 1:11:21Robert Evans?

  It is. That's why I think, partly why he has to dress it up as a race thing, is because class is arbitrary. And it makes it clear that he's just like a snooty, rich asshole, right?

• 1:11:30Speaker 01

  He's gotta foof it up. He's gotta, he's gotta.

• 1:11:32Robert Evans?

  He's gotta foof it up.

• 1:11:33Speaker 01

  Razz it with some racism to make it like more exciting for people.

• 1:11:36Robert Evans?

  A little bit of a beard to make it seem scientific. Yeah.

• 1:11:38Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:11:40Robert Evans?

  Now, he still doesn't in the 1880s. He's still not advocating for the repression of less fit people. Quote, "Believing that it would ensue indirectly as a matter of course." In other words, you don't have to sterilize, cause how would we at this point in time, people? You don't have to like kill them. You just have to, if we just change the incentives and stop supporting them with social programs and spend that money on supporting rich people who are already rich and giving them more money to have kids, that's how we get rid of these people, right?

• 1:12:06Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:12:06Robert Evans?

  Now, as a result of his obsession with anthropogenic documentation, Galton decided to turn his scientific mind to devising systems that would allow the police to identify people who were inclined to criminal behavior or who had committed crimes. Speaking of criminal behavior, even as an old man, Galton continued to exhibit what we would call today, "A criminal and deeply troubling inclination towards measuring and describing the hotness of girls he liked without telling them what he was doing." This, this continues throughout his life, per Bullwer's biography. Quote, "In 1880, he exhibited a pocket registrator for recording the number of individuals of different kinds in a crowd without attracting attention. And he also drew attention to the ease with which registers may be kept by pricking

• 1:12:49Robert Evans?

  holes in paper of different compartments with a fine needle. He used the latter technique to construct a beauty map of the British Isles, classifying the girls he passed in the street or elsewhere as attractive, indifferent, or repellent. He found London to rank the highest for beauty and Aberdeen the lowest." So, he creates this like pocket notebook that he can, without looking, rate the hotness of people, like, to like, and he uses this to create a map of where the girls are hottest in the British Isles.

• 1:13:17Speaker 01

  Again, he would've done great with AI and like Reddit.

• 1:13:20Robert Evans?

  I.

• 1:13:20Speaker 01

  He would've loved these things. This is like the John Doe notebook in Seven, is what you're describing.

• 1:13:25Robert Evans?

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:13:26Speaker 01

  Serial killer notebook.

• 1:13:28Robert Evans?

  You know, what it made me think about is the very first version of Facebook that Mark Zuckerberg had was a way for, it was hot or not. It was a way for Pete, guys to like rate the girls in their school, right?

• 1:13:38Speaker 01

  Like monetizing.

• 1:13:39Robert Evans?

  He and Galton are the same man.

• 1:13:41Speaker 01

  Yeah. It really does feel like any era, there's certain like characteristics of people like this. Uh, dirtbags, I would call them dirtbags.

• 1:13:51Robert Evans?

  Dirtbags, scumbags, gross guys.

• 1:13:53Speaker 01

  Characteristics. And one is like trying to boil people down to these equations, able to rate them and give them quality to make yourself feel better, I assume? That's the point, right?

• 1:14:04Robert Evans?

  And the other is doing a secret hot or not?

• 1:14:08Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:14:08Robert Evans?

  You don't want people to see you doing it.

• 1:14:11Speaker 01

  Again, like looking at pictures of him, I, I, you know, I'm not him. I don't wanna rate people's looks, but it's very clear that he's the kinda guy who perhaps if someone had a notebook with him in it, he wouldn't be at the top of that notebook.

• 1:14:25Robert Evans?

  He wouldn't turn out so well. Yeah.

• 1:14:26Speaker 01

  Right. So there's this idea of almost like reclaiming it, or like this guy who probably knows that he's nothing to look at, you know?

• 1:14:34Robert Evans?

  I think it's, it's more, I think that that's what he sees as like the actual value of like women, right? Is their hotness. Whereas like men clearly have other things going on.

• 1:14:44Speaker 01

  He's got that big sexy brain of his that uses a fucking prison mugshots to create the perfect criminals.

• 1:14:52Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 1:14:53Speaker 02

  I mean, don't forget, this is the, the guy who called that, that woman an uncommonly good-looking female lunatic.

• 1:14:59Robert Evans?

  Uncommonly good-looking.

• 1:15:00Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:15:00Robert Evans?

  Lunatics. Yes, yes. Um, my favorite classification of person. In 1886, Galton turned his keen scientific mind to the study of British Jews. And you know, this isn't gonna go anywhere.

• 1:15:11Speaker 02

  Oh, no.

• 1:15:12Robert Evans?

  Well, he's working with an anthropologist. Yeah, yeah. Oh, boy. Uh-oh.

• 1:15:17Speaker 02

  Oh, boy.

• 1:15:19Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Now, he's, his partner in this is an anthropologist and like historian of Jewish communities named Joseph Jacobs. I actually don't know if Jacobs is Jewish, but he's not like racist. Like, he's actually like interested in just like studying. Jewish people, I guess, for whatever reason. But I don't think he's a bigot. Or at least not compared to Galton. Galton, though, considers Jews to be inferior to Europeans because Jews have Asian origins. And he sees as evidence of the fact that like, as they're doing this like, survey of the like, Jews in London, a lot of London Jews live in large, like, live in, like, the inner city and like crowded neighborhoods and have large impoverished families, right?

• 1:15:58Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:15:59Robert Evans?

  In part, I'm guessing a lot of the, by the era, a lot of these folks would have come from like Eastern Europe as like refugees because like shit's really bad and like Russia and the like, you know? So you've got all, so he, he takes them out to like, ah, this is proof that like, they're an inferior kind of people. They have these large families, they live in these, you know, these bad neighborhoods, right? Galton conducted a study of these people and reported to the Royal Anthropological Institute, quote, "The feature that struck me the most as I drove to the school through the adjacent Jewish quarter was the cold scanning gaze of man, woman, and child. And this was no less conspicuous among the schoolboys. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that every one of them was coolly appraising me at market value without the slightest interest of any other kind."

• 1:16:40Speaker 01

  I found that as I was hiding in these bushes that these Jews were acting very suspicious about me.

• 1:16:47Robert Evans?

  Maybe it was nonsense, but I think they boiled me down to just thinking of my financial value. I have no evidence for this. No one said anything, but all of them did this. Yeah. Like, yeah, in his safari.

• 1:16:58Speaker 01

  This is a lot of that stuff, right? Is like, I, I'm gonna screw up this fact, but like, the, the idea of like Jews controlling the wealth came from the fact that Jews were allowed banking jobs at one point and not other jobs.

• 1:17:11Robert Evans?

  Yeah, yeah. That's, that's like, the, like, the basics of that are accurate, right? That like Christians and Muslims were forbidden from like collecting interest and stuff. And so that was part of one, like, one reason why Jewish people came to dominate the banking industry for a period.

• 1:17:24Speaker 01

  Yeah, and there's a lot of that. I remember, uh, there's like, the whole thing with Scrooge McDuck. This is such, it's like such racism that it's, I didn't even know, I didn't even know that like Scottish people are cheap. And it came from like, the famine of them like having to save money and everybody being like, ah, you're cheap.

• 1:17:42Robert Evans?

  Cause they were starving at one point.

• 1:17:43Speaker 01

  And it's like, no, they were dying. Yeah, they didn't have any money.

• 1:17:47Robert Evans?

  The stereotype of like, the lazy, and this is another thing that like fucking throws a wrench in Galton's bullshit. There was an understanding at this period of time that like, American Southerners, like the poor Southerners were like a worse quality of white because they were like lazy and slow and stupid. It turns out what happened is like, a large chunk of the South, people had horrible hookworms that like fucked up every aspect of their life, including like their, their brains, because they had fucking worms.

• 1:18:12Speaker 01

  White people love kicking someone in the shit and then going like, ah, you Irishmen, always holding your shins.

• 1:18:18Robert Evans?

  Always holding your shins.

• 1:18:20Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:18:20Robert Evans?

  Classic Irish. Yeah. But this is, and one of the things that's interesting, that's interesting here is that he is conducting this study with a guy who's not racist and comes to wildly different conclusions. In part because that other guy's actually trying to like, do a, like, study and like, the survey, the population and like, kind of what physical traits do people have in common, what illnesses are more common. Whereas Galton's looking, hiding in the bushes and being like, they're clearly appraising me with their Jew eyes, you know? Like, literally, that's the difference between them. One guy's doing science and Galton's just like, well, I'm pretty sure they all were thinking about this. So that's what I've concluded in my report to the Royal Society.

• 1:18:59Speaker 01

  I'm imagining now, like, all of his studies being like Frank from It's Always Sunny. Like, I'm just picturing Frank from It's Always Sunny.

• 1:19:07Robert Evans?

  It's a lot of that.

• 1:19:08Speaker 01

  Just running around, yeah.

• 1:19:09Robert Evans?

  He does take a lot of notes and document stuff, because there's all sorts of numbers. But when you get down to his basic conclusions, it's often, he decided all Jewish people felt this way, because he looked at a crowd once. In her dissertation, Susan Schumacher, Suzanne Schumacher summarizes the differing reactions to his work here. Quote, "He and many of his scientific colleagues believed that he had successfully captured the Jewish type. Jacobs and another Jewish scholar, Dr. Adolf Neubauer, however, had quite different opinions from Galton, as reported in their presentations to the Anthropological Society. They both argued that the Jews of Europe were so racially mixed that they could not be distinguished from other Europeans, and that if there was something in their expressions, it was environmental and related to them being oppressed individuals rather than from

• 1:19:54Robert Evans?

  heredity. What Galton relied, regarded as biologically determined, a visual embodiment of an inferior race, Jacobs saw as a social phenomenon." And again, Jacobs is obviously correct here. Now, despite the fact that his use of composite photography had consistently failed when he tried to validate it as a predictive, as predictive of anything, and that the constant disagreements of his colleagues kind of proved his objective findings were heavily subjective, Galton only grew more convinced, more obsessed with using composite photography and making like, objective judgments about large groups of people based on no real evidence. He toured asylums across the country, trying to average patients with tuberculosis to

• 1:20:35Robert Evans?

  prove some sort of link in their facial features, because there was a belief that like tuberculosis isn't caused by, it wasn't like a disease like we know it is. It was like a thing that some people with like, bad genes have, because like, they inherited tuberculosis, right? And so there's like this narrow ovoid face. And doctors, this isn't just Galton, doctors believe, oh, the narrow ovoid face is a sign of tuberculosis, right? That somebody might be, you know, at risk of coming down with it later in life if they have this face style. And Galton like averages a bunch of tuberculosis patients using this like facial composite, and he doesn't find that, right? It doesn't, that narrow ovoid face just like, isn't a thing. There's actually like, no facial features that seem to predict tuberculosis. And rather than seeing this as proof that, because he could have been like, oh, I guess

• 1:21:20Robert Evans?

  everyone else is wrong. And I, being smart Galton, got to prove them wrong using science. He does not. He reports that like, he didn't find a link, but he, he concludes by being like, future tests will definitely confirm a link, right? I just didn't get it right this time. But I'm sure this is still accurate. Because again, he's really not that good a scientist.

• 1:21:39Speaker 01

  And he really wants faces to matter.

• 1:21:42Robert Evans?

  He also started assembling composites of desirable features and the belief that this would inspire ordinary citizens to see what could be achieved through eugenics. He never like labels these or explains them, does he just like put out as propaganda of like, look at how good looking people could be in the future if we stop some of you from breeding. His work here never supported his actual beliefs about eugenics, but Galton would remain obsessed with facial composites for decades. However, his next area of scientific endeavor would be partly inspired by the failure of his composites to help identify criminals. We'll talk about how Francis Galton helped invent modern criminal science and fingerprinting in part four. But Dave, we're done for today.

• 1:22:20Speaker 02

  My question before we wrap is, uh, do we have a list of those desirable features? And does he have any of them?

• 1:22:29Robert Evans?

  Well, he's smart and rich, Sophie, that's most of it.

• 1:22:31Speaker 02

  Oh, okay. Dave, you got any pluggables?

• 1:22:34Speaker 01

  Oh, why not? I am a co-host of a podcast network called Gamefully Unemployed. We talk about movies, movies, it's moving pictures. We talk about that. Did you know that you could have podcasts about that? Yeah. We also have a Patreon, patreon.com slash gamefully unemployed, where you have exclusive podcasts on there, such as one that's called, uh, there's Tom and Jeff Watch Batman, there's Fox Mulder's A Maniac. There's a bunch. And we watch movies with our patrons as well. We do a lot of movie stuff. We like movies.

• 1:23:12Robert Evans?

  We regularly, I'll have people, especially after a rough episode, be like, anyone got a podcast that's less depressing to, to help me kind of clear? And I always recommend Gamefully Unemployed.

• 1:23:22Speaker 01

  Oh, thank you.

• 1:23:23Robert Evans?

  Check out, check out Tom and Dave. And check out the next and last part of our history, our series on Francis Galton, slightly later this week, or immediately, if you're listening to this in the future, when all the episodes are out, which statistically, most of you will be. So congratulations, you know many great things that we don't, and in fact, are a superior kind of person because you live in the future.

• 1:23:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, we're probably dead.

• 1:23:44Robert Evans?

  Goodbye. Yeah, maybe, who knows?

• 1:23:51Speaker 02

  Behind the Bastards is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Behind the Bastards is now available on YouTube. New episodes every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to our channel, youtube.com slash at Behind the Bastards.

• 1:24:17Speaker 05

  I'm Melissa Jelton, host of the What Happened to Her podcast. We're kicking off the season with the Sandra Birchmore story, a case the police wrote off as a suicide in a snowstorm. Her family never bought it, and the man they suspected wore a badge. You never know who that devil is because he's wearing a disguise. Sometimes it's a police uniform. And you can get access to all episodes 100% ad-free with an iHeart True Crime Plus subscription exclusively on Apple Podcasts, available only to iHeart True Crime Plus subscribers. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts, search for iHeart True Crime Plus, and subscribe today.

• 1:24:58Speaker 07

  If anyone wanted to commit a murder, up here would be the greatest place in the world to hide the body. But someone will find it.

• 1:25:06Speaker 04

  He acted friendly. He talked friendly. He sounded friendly.

• 1:25:11Speaker 07

  They all knew that I did the scary boogie stuff, and they said, maybe she'll find out where this girl is.

• 1:25:18Speaker 04

  I saw him, bow. Backhanded her, pow. Listen to The Devil's Quarry, Season Two, in the Bone Valley feed, on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:25:38Speaker 07

  Didn't catch the latest Roland Martin Unfiltered podcast?

• 1:25:42Speaker 04

  Here's what you missed.

• 1:25:42Speaker 06

  There should not be a single law enforcement agency that does not have body cameras.

• 1:25:48Speaker 07

  It's real.

• 1:25:49Speaker 06

  Black farmers have been under attack. This is just the latest example of them just slapping DEI on anything.

• 1:25:54Speaker 04

  It's raw.

• 1:25:54Speaker 06

  And I'm sitting here going, they are playing y'all for fools.

• 1:25:58Speaker 04

  Catch Roland Martin's daily commentary on the Black Information Network.

• 1:26:02Speaker 07

  And download Roland Martin Unfiltered on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

• 1:26:06Speaker 04

  or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:26:09Speaker 07

  In 1986, a man named Scott Macklem was killed in broad daylight. Police quickly found their suspect. Prosecutors convicted him. But now, almost 40 years later, I'm reexamining this case.

• 1:26:24Speaker 04

  I really didn't believe any of it was real. And I was like, well, they're, they're gonna figure out this is not me. They're, they're gonna do their police job.

• 1:26:31Speaker 07

  Has the wrong man been in prison this whole time? Listen to Examine: The Backfire Effect on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:26:47Speaker 03

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.