More to the point: it is entirely possible to "inside genetics" and know bugger-all about behaviour genetics, a rather specialized field. You can easily combine that with a career as a Cambridge academic and issue bombastic pronouncements with zero knowledge of the art.
Vitriol aside, I'm not sure it's even that true. I can think of at least 3 people who have genetics backgrounds. But most people probably enter the area from exposure to the psychology of group differences.https://twitter.com/Graham_Coop/status/1137484961508761600 …
-
-
-
Further, PCA is due to Karl Pearson, a mathematician. Odds are that any random engineer understands it better than any random "molecular evolutionist".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It makes sense too, as those are fields that are familiar with the results of psychometrics and efforts to close achievement gaps.pic.twitter.com/8hfEVsvriA
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He's not going to say that Robert Weinberg's comments in this biology 7.012 lecture at MIT are wrong though. https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbidden-thoughts.html?m=1 …
-
Ironically, Coop's objection is an example of the genetic fallacy.
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.