Steven PinkerПодлинная учетная запись

If you get a large chunk of your funding from The Pioneer Fund, which was founded by a eugenicist and has continued to fund research that could be seen as relevant to propagating racist ideas, it goes a bit beyond simple “guilt by association.” As they say, “follow the money.”

The Pioneer Fund doesn't even have a website. I'm not sure they even exist anymore.

But as you can see from the SPLC, they funded her work for years and she had made racist statements.

Biological properties defining a differential in specific human gene pools based on evolutionary biology is a reality. Would acknowledging those differences in an objective manner be racist to you?

The Southern Poverty Law Center is on their own list.

McCarthyite? I guess it’s perfectly fine to accept white nationalist funding? On top of that, we should give that tainted research a platform? Please explain.

Read the comments after the article. I learned some things. Maybe you will, too.

I, as a rule, don’t rely on comment sections for information but if you point me to the relevant cited information I would be happy to give it a read.

What hell point is this trying to make?

I think it's some kinda specious "both sides" thing? Aggressively besides the point, in any case.

She got paid by a "taboo" outfit, which is later explained to be mistaken as such, is how i read it. The Monsanto Slur, by another name.

The problem is that the Pioneer Foundation isn't just a taboo outfit, it's well known for bad research bolstered by dodgy money to forward an irrational political agenda. The problem isn't that it's "taboo" in scare-quotes, it's just shit.

Policy makers have been examining the cause of group disparities for decades. The APA Taskforce found that environmental factors do not explain them. Should researchers avoid this topic?

The first lesson of statistics is that they can be skewed. We know from studies in England that socioeconomics play a big roll in success. It is not to the advantage of policy makers to admit their policies discouraged learning.

So then just ditch all research based on statistics? We’ll then just be left with sociology and gender studies.

I’m saying that declaring statistical data of this magnitude is without merit. There are countries that would never allow their people to be tested(at least not the economically challenged).

Don't you think there is some sort of contradiction between these two claims? A) A given scientific belief is "extremist" and inherently immoral B) There is no proper evidence in favour or against that belief

Those are two different issues. The first is “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” and the second is you shouldn’t run around screaming from the roof tops when you have not explored the possibility that your data is affected by bias.

Same applies to you though. I think it's a bit incoherent to go around saying that holding a specific position deserves deplatforming and claims of being immoral while at the same admitting there's not enough data to show she is wrong.