and may i remind u that ur recommend DeBoer's @theAnova blog?
this is absolutely false
https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/05/13/no-really-race-is-a-social-construct/ …
its embarrassingly bad
-
-
-
Agreed, and I've told deBoer the same. But I don't demand someone be right where everyone else is wrong before generally liking them.
-
its a disservice to readers like me that look to u for solid recommends in the information deluge just recommend Haier to NEone that asks

-
Who's Haier?
-
Also, consider broader implication of supporting principle "never trust any work by person who disagrees with you about race/IQ".
-
This is basically the equivalent of no-platforming Charles Murray and ignoring his working on eg rural white working class.
-
I think it's important to protect ability to recommend someone you disagree with about other things
-
And I think this issue is especially important if you have unpopular ideas and expect to mostly be on the receiving end of shunning.
- 24 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
What does that mean?
-
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop … Which is definitely Vox's strategy
-
Ah gotcha. Have we published a lot of pieces about Charles Murray? I think that was the only one.
-
There's also the one Garrett wrote about at https://twitter.com/garettjones/status/846923004881731584 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Plus various less focused ones, tweets, and stuff by other sources.
-
I, personally, have definitely tweeted quite a few times that I find it bizarre that Charles Murray is considered a reputable figure.
-
Your own institution's article basically admits he was right about four out of five things, although it does its best to downplay it.
-
On fifth thing, I agree Vox found ppl who disagree with him, but he represents majority scientific position. See eghttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4804158/ …
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A simple new response? Cite
@Noahpinion's rule, now widely heard of, and advise people to assume Vox is useless.https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/calling-literatures-from-the-vasty-deep/ … -
How does this relate to Noah's rule?
-
I think you can cite an analogue of Noah's point: if you've investigated and dismissed 2 representative articles, assume it's all garbage.
-
But many excellent articles making IQ-partly-nonhereditary point. Neither obvious Murray's right, nor does Murray say 100% is genetic.
-
If someone gave me the two best articles arguing for nonhereditary IQ differences, I would expect them to be excellent.
-
That's not the hypothesis being discussed, though. To refute the claim of a hereditary IQ differences, you'd need to, well, refute it.
-
I mean, you can never prove a negative. I think "IQ differences are often nonhereditary, here's some reasons these might be" is enough.
-
You should know this! Bayesian evidence against the hypothesis is easy - if the hypothesis is specified clearly. Hereditary>0 isn't a claim
- 3 more 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.