283
Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
283 points (96.1% liked)
News
23260 readers
3751 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's controversial to say that different groups have different average IQ's now?
...and this is equivalent to blood libel? What an absurd position to take. Noting that Ashkenazim are smarter and have higher educational attainment on average doesn't imply that they secretly control the world.
There's lots of ways to criticize categorizing groups by IQ scores: point out that this is the average and incredibly intelligent individuals can emerge from many groups, cite the cultural bias of most IQ tests and how IQ tests may not be accurately measuring G, note that groups are adapted to different environments and on average each have different abilities because of these adaptations and none are objectively superior to another, point out that IQ is only ~57-80% heritable meaning that intelligence can arise, (or diminish,) from any group, etc.,
Honestly it seems like they are proving this asshole's point, that academia, (or at very least The Guardian,) is biased against information that doesn't fit with a political narrative. That said, many of his other views and conclusions drawn are abhorrent and I disagree with them vehemently; one can recognize group differences without suggesting racial hierarchy.
Edit: Originally I posted that heritability of IQ was 85%, and that was inaccurate.
If it has anything to do with race or ethnicity. Uh yes.
Groups don't stop having different average IQs simply because they are defined as racial or ethnic, intelligence is 57-80% heritable after all. What should be controversial is discrimination based on average test scores of other people, not acknowledgement of reality regarding differences between groups.
I suppose you actually assume the method of measuring is perfectly accurate and not biased in any way.
I acknowledged this in my first post:
I'm not sure what made you assume I thought IQ testing was perfectly accurate and unbiased. Lots of people here are arguing against positions they imagine I hold rather than what I actually wrote.
What units does G have or it is a fundamental constant? How does G interact with the physical brain, midi-chlorian perhaps? What particles make up G? Please show me the property table handbook that matches up G with other physical testable measurable units.
Prove to me that it is as real as gravity and temperature or volts. Because if you can't I am throwing it in the basket of horoscopes.
It is a construct. One can argue that G / general intelligence factor does not exist, I believe it does since mental ability seems to correlate with general competence across many domains. I believe it's a better argument that IQ tests may not be an effective method of deriving it.
I see. So you have faith that it is there, not evidence. And if your test is not good at finding it, it must be the test that is wrong not that you are trying to detect the undectable. The same logic can be applied to horoscopes, prayer, god, and Bigfoot. Did we make a detection? No? Oh well we must have been looking wrong. We have faith that it exists so any type of failure can be safely disregarded with our preconceived notions intact.
Your Midi-chlorianians don't operate like anything else in science. In science we find out things exist by following the evidence, in Midi-chlorianians we assume something exists and find "evidence". I wonder why they don't give you hard evidence of their existence. Why does your god.. sorry G spirit hate you so much?
There's plenty of debate about g in that article if you care to read it.
Your comparisons with bigfoot and horoscopes come across as glib and dismissive. Faith is defined by belief despite a lack of evidence. There's lots of evidence that g is a thing. I mentioned correlates.
Here's more evidence that general intelligence is actually a thing that can be measured.
Answer my questions. What units does G have? How does spiritual G interact with the physical human brain? What is the G particle? Is G quantized or fully analog? Why can't you produce a property handbook with G as it "correlates" with other physical measurable testable things? Does G act like a point charge? Is there a counter-G and if so what equation models how they repeal? How much does it weight per units G? Does it move in waves or as particles?
You are using the rhythms of science without the actual science. You name the physical thing I can show you as much as you wanted to know about it and then some. But not your Midi-chlorianians. I have more evidence that ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness are real than G is because I can at least point out to eyewitnesses. No one even claims to have even seen G.
Now admit the father of eugenics is the person responsible for its invention as a concept.
IQ is supposedly the measure of G, in which 100 is average human intelligence, and +-15 represents one standard deviation. It is a measurement based on population averages, derived from various forms of testing, and not some natural unit.
However, if you must insist that non-physical things don't exist, (like many mathematical and sociological constructs are,) note that intelligence has physical correlates.
Okay, evidently he was. I fail to see why this is relevant though. Whether IQ is valid conceptually or not has nothing to do with the one who invented the concept; this is fallacious reasoning. It does, however, make it clear that you think veracity is at least in part determined by ideology of the messenger.
Of all the questions I asked you, you tried to answer one. Not a great start.
Averages don't have to be unit less. I do agree with you however that IQ is not natural unit. It has very little whatsoever to do with the natural world. You know like the power of prayer.
I never once insisted that non-physical does not exist. I am clear that we have no evidence of non-physical things and as such we should put that stuff in the stuff outside of our knowledge. Like invisible unicorns. Yeah sure maybe they are real but no evidence so moving on.
Mathematics is a shit comparison. Math falls under symbols, sometimes those symbols match real world stuff and sometimes they don't. There really isn't an integral but there is stuff that we can model with it. Not the same thing at all with IQ. With IQ you claim to have developed a detection of the G-Spirit and your proof is that it came out to a round number. You started with the premise that G-Spirit is real and tried to invent evidence for it instead of finding evidence and detected the G-Spirit. What you are doing has no difference at all than those who dress in black and claim to have found ghosts on the history channel.
I am glad you bothered to look up your hero. It does matter. You see you said it yourself. IQism is a construct and when someone invents bullshit why they invent it really does matter. If I declare you unfit to live and demand you take me on faith do you have no right to question me?
― Voltaire
Oh you wanted me to respond to all the rhetorical bullshit you were projecting onto me? Sorry, no. I'd rather ignore that and try to have an adult conversation about this topic. I addressed some of your questions that weren't entirely bad faith projection by pointing out that IQ is sociological/behavioral, based on test averages, and does not measure anything physical.
You clearly implied that g isn't a thing because it has no physical basis.
What on earth are you talking about? It seems like you're arguing with what you imagine I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying. Do you understand average distributions of test results? Because they are a real thing and not "G-Spirit."
A reasonable criticism would be that these tests don't accurately measure G, or that G doesn't exist, instead it seems your position is that well-established ways to refer to these probabilistic distributions of test results, (with round numbers!) is equivalent to pseudoscience bullshit.
It's like saying inches are pseudoscience because the length is arbitrary and the basis for the metric is biased. Okay, but does that imply length doesn't exist? Our measurement of it may be arbitrary but we are measuring a real thing.
Similarly, general intelligence seems to be a thing, there are smart people and there are dumb people. Someone who experienced neurological developmental problems probably won't be as good at taking tests, or be as adept at skills that require complex abstract reasoning as someone with normal development. I don't believe this is a controversial statement.
Perhaps our rulers for measuring aren't the best, perhaps the person that invented the yardstick was an asshole, perhaps the units could be better defined, but none of that means that length doesn't exist. Just like intelligence, it's pretty clear that it does.
Believing that G is a thing that may or may not be accurately measured by IQ doesn't make him my hero. Voltaire was a racist, does quoting him mean he is your hero and you agree with his ideology?
A measurement of average human intelligence distribution is just like ghost hunters? You're not even wrong, you're clearly here in bad faith, and I'm done wasting my time with you. Good day.
Why doesn't your G Spirit help you with better arguments? Are your Midi-chlorianians low? Sorry not sorry no one is buying your eugenics arguments today, go hang out with some racist WASPs at the country club and complain about it.
But race and ethnicity themselves are not determinative.
Citation needed. Most citations I could find said genetics may account or anywhere from 30 to 50% of a person's intelligence. But they have no idea what genes would possibly be contributing to that and how. So basically it's a hypothesis with zero proof. Either you are operating on junk science or straight up eugenicist.
While it is true that random groups of people may have different average IQs. It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc. Even then, IQ is not actually a useful measure of intelligence.
I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:
Thanks, I'll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.
One cannot discount the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. Some twin studies are quite remarkable in illustrating the significant role it plays.
Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted. The twin studies are highly controversial for a number of reasons. But the results from them are not able to be generalized to the population at large in any way. And just to finish. Correlation is not causation. These studies pointed to interesting possibilities. Though That didn't justify them still. But they ultimately prove nothing.
I wonder how many of those twin studies were not submitted to peer review because they found nothing. Ah yes publication bias.
Acknowledging heritability of IQ makes me neither of these things. There's a lot of studies confirming this all cited at the wikipedia link above. Guess they're all "junk science" because they don't fit with your philosophy.
One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?
So. Where to start.
Wikipedia is not a source. Wikipedia themselves go to great lengths on many pages. Saying many different ways that they are not a source or inherently reliable, etc etc etc.
IQ was literally popularized and used to justify eugenics. By eugenecists.
IQ testing has heavy cultural and linguistic biases that keeps it from being an accurate measurement of anything.
IQ itself is pseudoscientific bullshit. Not taken seriously by any scientific field. It has as much importance and factual bearing as surveys in Cosmo magazine or Teen Beat, Tiger Beat, etc etc etc.
It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.
All correlation can ever do is imply. Causation is not an implication. No amount of implications can prove causation. They are different things entirely.
You are correlating heavily with eugenicists. You are using the language of eugenics. The measures of eugenics. And the reasoning of eugenics. Now while it's true, I cannot say what's in your heart. All your pro eugenics talk maybe performative and pure bluster. Which honestly isn't any better. However, if this is sincerely not what you're doing. And you don't think you are or don't want to be seen as someone pro eugenics. I suggest you change up where you're getting your information from. I'm not going to tell you where to go. Just suggest that maybe what you're doing now isn't working for you.
That's probably because the article we're discussing is about a eugenicist's paper.
I manage to discuss articles about criminal acts without endorsement. Must be all the Midi-chlorianians I have. Take it on faith that I do.
Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I'll wait.
I was listing an example. I pointed out that it is possible to discuss awful things without endorsement. You are discussing g IQism and it's good buddy eugenics and are giving everyone the impression that you are fans of both. Which you pretty much have to be. Once you assume the spiritual belief in the holy G you have to assume that there are people with less Holy Spirit than others. Meaning humanity can be evaluated by 1 number and ranked accordingly. At some level there is a cutoff of who is unfit to live and who is fit to live. Since more G is always good it differs from all other rankings.
You can't apply this to anything else. Being a better long distance runner means very little. You could still be in bad health you could still die at a young age. You could still be a jerk. However Holy Spirit G is always good. You take up as much space and use the same level of resources as someone with less Holy Spirit. A plus with no downsides since it measures all aspects of the human mind. Belief in IQ and you are going to believe that humanity should get rid of those with less IQ.
As I told you before, it doesn't act like anything else in existence. You aren't a better human because you have a higher temperature, or eat more calories, or have darker skin. Which should set off massive alarm bells, because right now you are pleading for special treatment. A well known logical fallacy.
And again, IQ means little in the big scheme of things. It is not first among many differing attributes which are important to human beings' survival, adaptation and growth.
Please stop trying to argue it is.
Odd how little it matters, almost as if there is nothing there to begin with. Like prayer.
I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:
Please don't project positions onto me that I do not hold. That's called the straw man fallacy.
5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.
I wasn't projecting ... I was stating how the balance of your responses provided a context.
Or, stay with me here, it was directly related to the OP.
Did you read the article? That's what it's about.
the tests themselves are biased, and should not be used as a metric at all.
IQ tests are pseudoscience. The topurpose of the test was from the very beginning to decide which groups are unfit to live.
Yes, it is highly controversial, and rightly so. First, an IQ is a number that is based on an intelligence test and intended to measure an individual's cognitive ability in comparison with a reference population, typically with other people of similar ages and in the same country (i.e., the population that they belong to). Intelligence tests are meaningless for group comparisons such as comparisons between countries or ethnic/religious groups, and doing so represents a misuse and misinterpretation of IQ scores. Researchers are not "biased" against this based on their political opinions. They simply object to the objectionable use of these tests.
Second, group comparisons about intelligence are also problematic for a variety of other reasons, and studies that claim to find group differences tend to conflate them with other between-group differences (e.g., different socioeconomic, nutritional, educational influences, among others). These studies are essentially pseudo-science.
Finally, although genetics do seem to play a significant role for cognitive ability, it's important to realize that statements like "IQ is x% heritable" are statistical estimates. These estimates are obtained by comparing sources of variance that can be attributed to shared vs. non-shared genetic and environmental influences. As such, any heritability estimate is specific to its social context (e.g., countries). In fact, heritability estimates tend to be higher in more equitable societies, because they reduce the impact of environmental influences (e.g., wealth, parental education), thus increasing the relative proportion of variance that can be attributed to genetics (but obviously genetics in, say, Sweden still work the same as they do in the US).