I think you got it backwards. The Mismeasure of Man was comprehensively debunked. It falsified data
-
-
Replying to @RafFaithfull @arthur_affect and
What people found was that the measurements Morton took were not falsified; but that doesn't mean the data was valid for telling you anything. Gould didn't falsify anything - the criticism was about his analysis of the data.
2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @Mad_Science_Guy @RafFaithfull and
Gould aside, though, there are plenty of other people who have written pretty cogently about how intelligence testing has ended up as a cover for scientific racism.
1 reply 0 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @Mad_Science_Guy @arthur_affect and
And? So? Who cares? That has no bearing on truth claims about test scores taken today
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @arthur_affect and
Eugenics hasn't got any bearing on genetics but that doesn't alter the fact that it's scientific racism, designed to do harm.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @Mad_Science_Guy @arthur_affect and
Genetics is scientific racism? Psychometrics is scientific racism? What is being claimed here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @arthur_affect and
Genetics isn't scientific racism, eugenics is. A huge chunk of psychometrics has a horrible history, closely linked to eugenics, and the people who study it haven't done the best job of unlinking the two.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @Mad_Science_Guy @arthur_affect and
Sure. I agree with that. But who is a eugenicist here? Scott?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @ArmadilloBear @Mad_Science_Guy and
Interpersonal eugenics is practiced by everyone. State imposed eugenics is morally problematic, but Scott doesn’t support that
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
If you genuinely decide to have kids because you think your genes are superior, I can't stop you, but you're an asshole, and if you actually say it I can call you one
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @ArmadilloBear and
That’s not what I mean or what he means. If a woman wants to have babies with the smartest and most attractive man she can find, is that wrong? Is that eugenics? No.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RafFaithfull @ArmadilloBear and
It's kind of creepy if she actually seriously believes that this will guarantee her kids to share the guy's positive qualities, especially intangible and indefinable ones like "intelligence"
4 replies 1 retweet 21 likes - Show replies
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.