Scientists should be allowed to study anything they choose. But they should also recognize when their methods are not capable of answering certain questions. IMHO, that is one of them. 1/2
-
-
Replying to @PsychRabble @Steve_Sailer and
If they are serious about wanting to answer THAT question, they should FIRST develop methods that are capable of doing so. It will be far easier to develop such methods in simpler contexts, such as working with plants&animals.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @eyes_skies and
Exactly what research on plants and animals relevant to the question of race & IQ in humans hasn't yet been done? What more would need to be done in your view to justify lifting the moratorium you propose on studies of human race & intelligence? I'm genuinely curious.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @eyes_skies and
Do exactly what you (and others, here and elsewhere, including some scientists) are asking to be done with race/iq/genetics. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @Steve_Sailer and
Show that, with intact, naturally occurring populations of the same species, you can conclusively identify the role of genes/environment/interactions in producing group differences.
4 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @Steve_Sailer and
1) This requirement is insane because "environment" is what causes selective pressure for different traits - which then feeds back into genes. They can't be disentangled entirely even though you can look at the genomic changes. 2) Crows fit this to a T. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2010.00019.x …pic.twitter.com/U37jdvzI7J
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
Great. We agree. If the requirement is "insane," then we should not be in the business of claiming we can do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @Steve_Sailer and
Yes, that's one way to resolve that you set a unmeetable standard. Sane people, however, will choose to resolve it in a different way. The mechanism for genetic change is natural selection *due to different environments*. Your standard rejects natural selection.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @Steve_Sailer and
My next step will be to block, because I choose not to spend effort refuting ridiculous characterizations of my claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PsychRabble @Steve_Sailer and
Is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Who cares?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
They're not ridiculous in the slightest. > conclusively identify the role of genes/environment/interactions in producing group differences Apply this to behavioral difference across species. Do lions behave differently from snow leopards because of genes or environment?
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @PsychRabble and
Guess he'll never answer but will feel reassured that he never saw the question.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.