Love this thread. My impression is this extends far beyond maths - a vastly superior IQ is also not a necessary or sufficient condition for being a great prof in other fields. Thanks for writing this, @amy_harmonhttps://twitter.com/amy_harmon/status/1098933317997608965 …
-
-
Replying to @PKoellinger
Thanks so much,
@pkoellinger. But -- I feel like you should also see this: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2019/02/22/kinds-of-evidence/ …. It's self-contradictory but invokes either@thessgac EA3 or@DPosthu's data to argue against the points I raise in the thread.4 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @amy_harmon @PKoellinger and
It is not self-contradictory. You just don't understand it.
1 reply 1 retweet 38 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @PKoellinger and
Yes, quite possibly it was too ungrammatical for me to parse. To what does the ’such genetic factors’ in this sentence refer, for instance? "Harmon tries to imply that this means that there are no such genetic factors.’’
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @amy_harmon @PKoellinger and
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Got it? In 2010 we didn't have direct genetic evidence of alleles influencing individual differences in intelligence. That doesn't mean they weren't there: now we've found many.
3 replies 4 retweets 50 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @amy_harmon and
Today, 2019, we don't have useful direct genetic evidence of alleles influencing group differences. Doesn't mean they can't exist. We don't even have direct evidence of alleles that make people smarter than chimps. Betcha they exist though.
3 replies 5 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @PKoellinger and
Right. No one said average group genetic differences can’t exist, that’s your perpetual straw man. What you choose to believe is that they exist in the direction of the IQ-score phenotype, when there is no credible evidence for that.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @amy_harmon @gcochran99 and
Now that I understand the meaning of your convoluted sentence, I can say this is wrong: "Harmon tries to imply that this means that there are no such genetic factors.” I only ever say, per every population geneticist I’ve interviewed, that no “such” factors are now known.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @amy_harmon @PKoellinger and
One answer the question in a New York minute with an admixture study. The problem is, anyone that did so would be fired, due to people like you. But that's a solvable problem.
2 replies 5 retweets 44 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @PKoellinger and
Why are you so eager for proof that black people are genetically less intelligent than others? Genuine question. What bothers you so much about the presumption that racial disparities in income, wealth, education, etc could be mitigated with more-just social policies?
12 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
We've tried increasingly *unjust* and increasingly expensive social policies under the premise genetic equality exists - without a single shred of evidence in favor of the proposition It's time to stop doubling down
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.