Eric Turkheimer

If your point is re: "few years away", then time optimism might be a better accusation rather than him being "scientifically unserious".

Murray also says, and I'm more or less quoting here: "nutrition can have a big effect on IQ scores". So "Murray flatly tells..." is wrong.

Thanks. It is a lot more effective if others make these points than if I do. Since I'm in the grip of pseudoscience.

Why say Harris doesn't mention the Flynn Effect, when he does, in the exact section that you're discussing, and CM talks about it at length?

And in fact Harris goes on to challenge Murray (I'm re-listening now) with a quote from Flynn, which is then responded to.

I mean maybe you disagree with the way it's responded to, and that's totally fine. But to say it isn't mentioned is just wrong.

You're being really picky. Harris didn't challenge Murray on what the implications of the Flynn effect are.

But he did! And Murray responded with the Wicherts paper. Again, fair to disagree with the science but can't say they didn't discuss it.

Maybe I missed it. What was his response re. Wicherts?

He cited a paper which he tweeted earlier this evening. I'm going to bed so take a scroll through his timeline.

Yeah. Paper isn't public and tidbit certainly didn't answer what seems the issue.

Your piece starts well but then becomes at least as ideological & biased as anything Murray said. You obfuscate, ignore counterarguments &

contrary evidence & apply lax standards of evidence where it helps you & harsh standards when it doesn't. To say there's "no evidence" for

Also numbers don't add up: 17% + 42% + 18% + 39% + 5% = 121% #Sloppy