Emil O W Kirkegaard

Most people don't bother to screenshot or archive stuff, so deleting old ('old') tweets is usually enough if one isn't a high profile target (like a politician) where people archive everything at once.

I did look over the Murderist argument you sent. It is long and wandering, but what you are basically saying is we are assuming you are "racist by motive." I don't know enuf about it to refute, but I see the issue at least.

Your tweet on Black Americans not knowing who the president is tho--I mean, that's just not even remotely related to your research. So, maybe you do need to take a look at all this and think about it. That's just not right, Emil. There's really no getting around it.

I don't recall the context of the tweet. But if you look at surveys of political ignorance, then rates are high all around. I was able to find a survey now of that specific claim and it was wrong (everybody basically knew who Trump was). So what?

Much of your research shows a near obsession with race, particularly black vs. white, when I can't even see a purpose. Your study on biracial children in Japan you even state yourself is a pitifully low sample to mean anything.

Yes, you decide to further divide this nonsignificant sample into those with white or black fathers? To what end? I find you to be little more than a hobbyist masquerading as a scientist who is clearly obsessed with IQ and trying to prove whites are superior thru pathetic means.

I will not, as Maria suggests, declare everyone who studies in this field to be a racist, but looking at your "research" (which doesn't deserve to be classified as such), you clearly have an underlying agenda which adds nothing to scientific knowledge.

More curious claims. Suppose someone had the opposite view, and they spent 10 years trying to prove there are no genetic IQ gaps. Would you attack them the same way? Why not? There are plenty of such people around. Why the double standards?