Hi Andy! Read both. The Quillette piece cites narrowly scoped anthropological findings and applies them to arguments outside of the scope of the original, arguing, for example, that cranial differences indicate we must therefore accept psychological differences as racialized. 1/?https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1139279894515310592 …
-
Show this thread
-
Indeed, when it comes to the core argument of the Quillette piece, which is that anthropological findings of differences between ethnicities in physiological characteristics must, therefore, mean that there is variation in *cognitive* ability between races.
4 replies 14 retweets 373 likesShow this thread -
Citations for this argument include historical studies about the influence of different types of agricultural on the development of differing cultures - which is NOT about race, nor about cognition. But in digging on their citations, I found something else fishy.
1 reply 14 retweets 342 likesShow this thread -
In order to support their leap that superficial physiological characteristics must also lead one to conclude that cognitive differences must be present, the Quillette piece links to two papers. The first of which is a study of genetic disease in medieval Jews. The 2nd is... well.
1 reply 16 retweets 331 likesShow this thread -
(CW: child sexual abuse) The second piece links to an article with a host of problems, so I'll just start at the top. The article's primary author is Emil O.W. Kierkegaard, a Danish "philosopher" well known for saying pedophiles should be allowed to rape sleeping children.
5 replies 20 retweets 332 likesShow this thread -
Some would call that enough reason to reject any study helmed by that man, but since Quillette is about ~debating ideas~, let's move on to point out that the man has also released data without deidentifying participants, many of whom didn't know they were being used for a study.
1 reply 17 retweets 340 likesShow this thread -
Additionally, Kierkegaard has been consistently rejected from peer-reviewed journals in his field, which explains why this article appears in a brand new open access journal run by a chinese publishing house that used the name of Nobel Lauretes without their permission.
4 replies 24 retweets 384 likesShow this thread
Except that I haven't. I've published >10 articles in mainstream journals. (Generally good idea to check facts before repeating RationalWiki.)
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.