- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Rufo described Jonatan Pallesen as “a Danish data scientist who has raised new questions about Claudine Gay’s use – and potential misuse – of data in her PhD thesis” in an interview published in his newsletter and on the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal website last Friday.
He did not tell readers that a paper featuring Pallesen’s own statistical work in collaboration with the eugenicist researchers has been subject to scathing expert criticism for its faulty methods, and characterized as white nationalism by another academic critic.
The revelations once again raise questions about the willingness of Rufo – a major ally of Ron DeSantis and powerful culture warrior in Republican politics – to cultivate extremists in the course of his political crusades.
The Guardian emailed Rufo to ask about his repeated platforming of extremists, and asked both Rufo and the Manhattan Institute’s communications office whether they had vetted Pallesen before publishing the interview. Neither responded.
If it has anything to do with race or ethnicity. Uh yes.
Groups don’t stop having different average IQs simply because they are defined as racial or ethnic, intelligence is 57-80% heritable after all. What should be controversial is discrimination based on average test scores of other people, not acknowledgement of reality regarding differences between groups.
I suppose you actually assume the method of measuring is perfectly accurate and not biased in any way.
I acknowledged this in my first post:
I’m not sure what made you assume I thought IQ testing was perfectly accurate and unbiased. Lots of people here are arguing against positions they imagine I hold rather than what I actually wrote.
What units does G have or it is a fundamental constant? How does G interact with the physical brain, midi-chlorian perhaps? What particles make up G? Please show me the property table handbook that matches up G with other physical testable measurable units.
Prove to me that it is as real as gravity and temperature or volts. Because if you can’t I am throwing it in the basket of horoscopes.
It is a construct. One can argue that G / general intelligence factor does not exist, I believe it does since mental ability seems to correlate with general competence across many domains. I believe it’s a better argument that IQ tests may not be an effective method of deriving it.
I see. So you have faith that it is there, not evidence. And if your test is not good at finding it, it must be the test that is wrong not that you are trying to detect the undectable. The same logic can be applied to horoscopes, prayer, god, and Bigfoot. Did we make a detection? No? Oh well we must have been looking wrong. We have faith that it exists so any type of failure can be safely disregarded with our preconceived notions intact.
Your Midi-chlorianians don’t operate like anything else in science. In science we find out things exist by following the evidence, in Midi-chlorianians we assume something exists and find “evidence”. I wonder why they don’t give you hard evidence of their existence. Why does your god… sorry G spirit hate you so much?
There’s plenty of debate about g in that article if you care to read it.
Your comparisons with bigfoot and horoscopes come across as glib and dismissive. Faith is defined by belief despite a lack of evidence. There’s lots of evidence that g is a thing. I mentioned correlates.
Here’s more evidence that general intelligence is actually a thing that can be measured.
Answer my questions. What units does G have? How does spiritual G interact with the physical human brain? What is the G particle? Is G quantized or fully analog? Why can’t you produce a property handbook with G as it “correlates” with other physical measurable testable things? Does G act like a point charge? Is there a counter-G and if so what equation models how they repeal? How much does it weight per units G? Does it move in waves or as particles?
You are using the rhythms of science without the actual science. You name the physical thing I can show you as much as you wanted to know about it and then some. But not your Midi-chlorianians. I have more evidence that ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness are real than G is because I can at least point out to eyewitnesses. No one even claims to have even seen G.
Now admit the father of eugenics is the person responsible for its invention as a concept.
But race and ethnicity themselves are not determinative.
Citation needed. Most citations I could find said genetics may account or anywhere from 30 to 50% of a person’s intelligence. But they have no idea what genes would possibly be contributing to that and how. So basically it’s a hypothesis with zero proof. Either you are operating on junk science or straight up eugenicist.
While it is true that random groups of people may have different average IQs. It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc. Even then, IQ is not actually a useful measure of intelligence.
I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:
Thanks, I’ll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.
One cannot discount the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. Some twin studies are quite remarkable in illustrating the significant role it plays.
Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted. The twin studies are highly controversial for a number of reasons. But the results from them are not able to be generalized to the population at large in any way. And just to finish. Correlation is not causation. These studies pointed to interesting possibilities. Though That didn’t justify them still. But they ultimately prove nothing.
I wonder how many of those twin studies were not submitted to peer review because they found nothing. Ah yes publication bias.
Acknowledging heritability of IQ makes me neither of these things. There’s a lot of studies confirming this all cited at the wikipedia link above. Guess they’re all “junk science” because they don’t fit with your philosophy.
One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?
And again, IQ means little in the big scheme of things. It is not first among many differing attributes which are important to human beings’ survival, adaptation and growth.
Please stop trying to argue it is.
Odd how little it matters, almost as if there is nothing there to begin with. Like prayer.
I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:
Please don’t project positions onto me that I do not hold. That’s called the straw man fallacy.
5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.
I wasn’t projecting … I was stating how the balance of your responses provided a context.
So. Where to start.
Wikipedia is not a source. Wikipedia themselves go to great lengths on many pages. Saying many different ways that they are not a source or inherently reliable, etc etc etc.
IQ was literally popularized and used to justify eugenics. By eugenecists.
IQ testing has heavy cultural and linguistic biases that keeps it from being an accurate measurement of anything.
IQ itself is pseudoscientific bullshit. Not taken seriously by any scientific field. It has as much importance and factual bearing as surveys in Cosmo magazine or Teen Beat, Tiger Beat, etc etc etc.
It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.
All correlation can ever do is imply. Causation is not an implication. No amount of implications can prove causation. They are different things entirely.
You are correlating heavily with eugenicists. You are using the language of eugenics. The measures of eugenics. And the reasoning of eugenics. Now while it’s true, I cannot say what’s in your heart. All your pro eugenics talk maybe performative and pure bluster. Which honestly isn’t any better. However, if this is sincerely not what you’re doing. And you don’t think you are or don’t want to be seen as someone pro eugenics. I suggest you change up where you’re getting your information from. I’m not going to tell you where to go. Just suggest that maybe what you’re doing now isn’t working for you.
That’s probably because the article we’re discussing is about a eugenicist’s paper.
I manage to discuss articles about criminal acts without endorsement. Must be all the Midi-chlorianians I have. Take it on faith that I do.
the tests themselves are biased, and should not be used as a metric at all.