Here’s the bottom line: I have no idea what motivated Cremieux to include Burt’s fraudulent data, but even without it his visual is highly misleading, if not manipulative
Well, the latter part of this sentence gives a hint at the actual reason.
And the first comment is by Hanania lol, trying to debunk the fraud allegations by saying that is just how things were done back then. While also not realizing he didnt understand the first part of the article. Amazing how these iq anon guys always react quick and to everything. Also was quite an issue on Reddit, where just a small dismissal of IQ could lead to huge (copy pasted) rambling defenses of IQ.
The author is also calling Richard out on his weird framing.
Iirc (was a while ago I read it) one of the big problems with the gms article imho is that it doesn't really make clear that this is only talking about a specific type of sociopath (or in other words it redefined the term, so normal stuff doesnt apply. Rao’s Gervais Principle has the same problem. no shock there.), more like someone who hurts the subculture ingroup. That in a lot of subcultures the geeks are also sociopaths to the outgroup isnt really considered. (See as a big example, metal/rock or even worse their subculture: nsbm, the former are often quite abusive to various people (esp women, who often were not considered to be able to be part of the ingroup, but also general rockstar asshole behavior) and the latter case they are basically neonazis. But also just how much the article seems to dislike mops and strawmans them (oddly this part of the article also feels very much like he doesnt understand what actually goes into organizing stuff, as a minor sort of fanatic type myself who has helped out at things. Mops are fine, this 'Fanatics may be generous, but they signed up to support geeks, not mops.' is utter crap, it also feels a bit protoincel re the whole sociopaths sleep with the best mops).