Sorry wrote previous tweet before reading your post. point remains though: The social implications of his results and yours are radically different. claims with large implications require large evidence. By this view there's no hypocrisy from him.
Sample size hypocrisy – Stuart Ritchie edition. Publishing 4 studies with n<50, and then complain about others doing the same when he doesn't like their research question. http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=7699
-
-
-
No, it is claims that are extraordinare that require much evidence. Things which are otherwise difficult to believe. Not potential truths that you may find uncomfortable. Also, they state in the paper that these findings are tentative and require more evidence...
-
I agree re: extraordinary claims but, it's not either/or. potentially harmful claims also require more evidence. I don't think these things should be banned from research, but given how they *will* be misused, the standard of evidence needs to be higher.
-
Please describe the likely misuse of data showing 1) Ashkenazi Jews to be smarter than gentiles, 2) genetic data indicating this is probably due to genetics for the most part. Because to me this sounds like convenient BS made up to enforce double standards for things you dislike
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
He says people who study group differences are "weird/obsessive/losers"? I think something other than science is going on here. Areas of inquiry should not be sidelined due to PC sensitivities.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's the IDW style clinging desperately onto the last thread of social acceptance before you get gulaged
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.