9 ms·

You’re asking people to prove a negative, and also assuming that there’s no chilling effect as people learn that certain topics are not a good idea if you want

You’re asking people to prove a negative, and also assuming that there’s no chilling effect as people learn that certain topics are not a good idea if you want a career. The premier example of robust, well documented science with vociferous opposition has to be intelligence. Besides scholars with a fiercer attachment to their politics than the truth like Gould you also have introductory psychology textbooks that go out of their way to muddy the waters by giving space to alternative theories of intelligence to g with fuck all empirical backing like Gardner’s or Sternberg’s. If they had similar standards in other areas of psychology everything would be as bad as social. For suppression there was an article in Third World Quarterly withdrawn due to credible threats of violence because a mob didn’t like the topic. Note it wasn’t retracted and it passed peer review. David Graeber recently led a campaign to have Noah Carl’s offer of a postdoc withdrawn at Cambridge, successfully. And there was a campaign at Hypatia, a feminist philosophy journal to have an article withdrawn for discussing trans racialism in the context of transsexuality.

allovernow 7y ago
Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. Find me one credible media outlet which even questioned such treatment! Edit: sorry, I misread a headline about him losing the prize, it read stripped of "honors". Point still stands.
- specialist 7y ago
  You're claiming that Watson's views of IQ, genetics, and race are scientific?
  - frogger23127 7y ago
    Absolutely. Your negative emotional reaction to scientific research is not a valid refutation of that research. Science is based on logic, not emotions. Facts do not care about your feelings.
    - rfdbsd 7y ago
      None of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments are conclusions drawn from his work. He is just a foul and bitter man whose terrible personal views are sadly and foolishly taken seriously, due to his prestige and authority. YOU tell me how any of these bold and outlandish claims are actually based on sound research and logic.
      - frogger23127 7y ago
        No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Of course, some of what he says may just be his personal opinions. You say that he is a foul and bitter man with terrible personal views, but that is your own opinion and not objectively true.
        rfdbsd 7y ago
        > No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid. The impetus is on _you_.
        frogger23127 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.
        frogger23128 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
- Fishysoup 7y ago
  "Two and two may equal four" being a bunch of nonsensical racist slandering based on no evidence. Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. And trust me, there's been no lack of racist scientists. It's just that bullshit doesn't stick.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. This isn’t true. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQ scores than whites. Male and female scores on IQ tests are identical by construction. They have different scores on the component sub tests. http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography Since the publication of “The Bell Curve,” many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate cur- rent scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are ac- tually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions re- garded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, ori- gins, and practical consequences of individu- al and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The follow- ing conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jdauriemma 7y ago
      Those bell curves don't control for environmental and other non-genetic factors, making your statements - insofar as they are based on the document you linked - irrelevant to the conversation.
      - toomim 7y ago
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  You can’t be stripped of a Nobel prize.
  - 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
    Looks like he sold his medal [0] to ameliorate his loss of earnings; perhaps that's to what GP was referring. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Wats...
    - wdbbdw 7y ago
      He never actually sold it [0]; a billionaire just paid him some cash instead and Watson got to keep his prize. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-bill...
      - tiles 7y ago
        Rather than public crucifixion, it looks like James Watson actually did quite well for himself?
- wdbbdw 7y ago
  'Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.” Dr. Collins said he was unaware of any credible research on which Dr. Watson’s “profoundly unfortunate" statement would be based.' [0] I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence, though at 2.5 hours long it may be a bit too thorough. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-geneti... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo edited for formatting
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Dr. Francis is either unfamiliar with, or being profoundly misleading of, expert opinion, as surveys show: "In the current study, EQCA experts wereasked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50." - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 > I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence 'Attacking' is a good description, as the author of that video went to great lengths to mislead. For example, he says the author of The Bell Curve doesn't understand what 'hereditary' means. But the definition the video author gives for 'hereditary', and the definition given in the book he's reviewing, match almost perfectly. So how did he come to that conclusion? He went out of his way to find a live interview where the book author fumbled his answer, instead of giving the definition from the book he's reviewing, or as you more accurately put it, attacking.
    - wdbbdw 7y ago
      While the quote you pulled from that survey seems to contradict what Dr. Collins said in his statement, the two sentences before that one seem more problematic for the idea that there's even a difference in IQ that can be attributed to race: "There was little to no support for separate subgroup norms for different racial, ethnic, or social groups or for people with different nationalities (natives vs. immigrants), with the percentage of experts favoring separate norms below 25%. There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence." Maybe Dr. Collins rubs shoulders with experts other than those surveyed here, who knows. Looking at the SD in the survey responses suggests that the position of the researchers polled in this survey wasn't accurately represented by the quote you posted. The example you use to critique the video I posted is also not very generous, and is a pretty lame rebuttal to what was a very extensive attack on the ideas presented in "The Bell Curve". Do you have any critiques on the more relevant points that the video actually makes? E.g. what is intelligence anyway and how can it be measured, if at all? Or, presuming that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, then how to square the supposition the Bell Curve makes about an idiocracy-style drop in IQ points with the Flynn effect? Another relevant question is what exactly is the scientific support for "race" as anything other than a meaningless label[0]? For example, in the interview of Charles Murray conducted by Sam Harris for his podcast, Murray used Barack Obama as an example of a typical black man, saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, even supposing that there is a difference in IQ between the races, it wouldn't justify denying a job to someone like Barack Obama if he came in applying for one. But, like, why is Obama black and not white? Have you seen a picture of Obama's mom? She's the whitest white lady from Kansas. I was recently working on some cancer project and I had a spreadsheet of the subjects' self-reported race, as well as genetic ancestry results showing the percentage of African ancestry and European ancestry. Some of the respondents who self-reported as African American had 97% European ancestry. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
- paganel 7y ago
  You would have think that him winning a Nobel prize would have made him aware that IQ tests are a scam, apparently he didn’t.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Watson wasn't crucified, or anything remotely analogous to it, his comments weren't particularly reasonable, and even his own near immediate apology explicitly noted that there was no scientific basis for them. (Though he has since returned to repeating them; the whole thing is weird since at the time he first made them, there was a very recent piece of work which could have been cited as support for the geography/IQ link he suggested, but in between then and the time he went back to issuing them that work had been torn apart for gross methodological errors, including deliberately excluding data to fit the intended conclusion.) > Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. He wasn't stripped of a Nobel prize, and he absolutely wasn't suggesting two plus two may equal four; he made an at best thinly supported claim about geography and IQ combined with a completely unsubstantiated claim about the premises of development policy toward Africa, and drew a dire conclusion from that combination.
n4r9 7y ago
That Noah Carl one is interesting, hadn't heard about that. The Cambridge college actually conducted a formal investigation with a panel led by a Professor, and published a statement [0] explaining their decision to retract the fellowship. The reasons cited were lack of research ethics and integrity in Carl's work, poor scholarship, and the risk of the college being used as a platform to promote racist views. Frankly, this seems like a measured response to a fairly standard complaint. Perhaps the only part of it that grates me is the public and "outraged" nature of the complaint. Without knowing much more about Carl's actual work, I suppose the outstanding question is, if the reasons above are true then how did he get the offer in the first place? [0] https://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/files/Statement%20by%20Master%20for%20website_outcome%20FINAL30%20April%202019.pdf https://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.st-edmunds.cam.ac...
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Yeah, if you get to pick the committee you can get them to report whatever you want, whether you explicitly instruct them as to what to find or not. Read his work for yourself and come to your own conclusions. His research gate profile. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noah_Carl https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noah_Carl His website. https://supportnoahcarl.com/ https://supportnoahcarl.com/ > Since I was fired, over 600 academics have signed a petition supporting me , and several leading newspapers have published articles criticising the college’s decision. The support I’ve received so far has been incredible! But petitions and newspaper articles aren’t enough. If we want to safeguard academic freedom, and freedom of speech more generally, we need to start imposing real, material costs on the institutions that buckle under activists’ pressure.
  - mayniac 7y ago
    > Since I was fired, over 600 academics have signed a petition supporting me He initially got fired because (almost) 600 academics signed an open letter casting doubt on his work, on top of 800 students [0]. Also, I don't really think that "read his work for yourself" is a valid argument. For one, you're talking hours, if not days or weeks of research, which isn't reasonable. And secondly, unless the person you're responding to knows sociology well, they're probably not going to be a good judge of his work. [0] https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-letter-no-to-racist-pseudoscience-at-cambridge-472e1a7c6dca https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-letter-no-to-...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
plumednom 7y ago
Whoa crap, I googled hypatia and realized I've been seeing her profile on OKCupid for like 15 years now. Glad I'm the only nerd who can't keep a relationship together!
charlesu 7y ago
An introductory psychology book that didn't give alternatives to g wouldn't be a very good textbook. g is easy to replicate but it doesn't really explain anything. It literally just proves that there's a correlation between cognitive tasks. That answers a what but not a why.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  I would agree if the alternatives were held to the same standards. As is teaching Sternberg or Gardner’s theories alongside g is like teaching Lamarck alongside Darwin.

allovernow 7y ago

Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. Find me one credible media outlet which even questioned such treatment! Edit: sorry, I misread a headline about him losing the prize, it read stripped of "honors". Point still stands.

specialist 7y ago
You're claiming that Watson's views of IQ, genetics, and race are scientific?
- frogger23127 7y ago
  Absolutely. Your negative emotional reaction to scientific research is not a valid refutation of that research. Science is based on logic, not emotions. Facts do not care about your feelings.
  - rfdbsd 7y ago
    None of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments are conclusions drawn from his work. He is just a foul and bitter man whose terrible personal views are sadly and foolishly taken seriously, due to his prestige and authority. YOU tell me how any of these bold and outlandish claims are actually based on sound research and logic.
    - frogger23127 7y ago
      No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Of course, some of what he says may just be his personal opinions. You say that he is a foul and bitter man with terrible personal views, but that is your own opinion and not objectively true.
      - rfdbsd 7y ago
        > No, you should tell us how they are not based on sound research and logic. Your claim is simply a just-so statement. You're the one making an unjustified assumption. Why should I assume you're correct by default? Until you actually provide any plausible reason why I should take it seriously, your claim is invalid. The impetus is on _you_.
        frogger23127 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality Of course there's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" toward this research, but those aren't valid refutations.
        frogger23128 7y ago
        Here's some research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality There's a lot of emotional hysterical screeching accusations of "racism" but those aren't valid arguments.
Fishysoup 7y ago
"Two and two may equal four" being a bunch of nonsensical racist slandering based on no evidence. Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. And trust me, there's been no lack of racist scientists. It's just that bullshit doesn't stick.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. This isn’t true. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have higher IQ scores than whites. Male and female scores on IQ tests are identical by construction. They have different scores on the component sub tests. http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstrea... Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography Since the publication of “The Bell Curve,” many commentators have offered opinions about human intelligence that misstate cur- rent scientific evidence. Some conclusions dismissed in the media as discredited are ac- tually firmly supported. This statement outlines conclusions re- garded as mainstream among researchers on intelligence, in particular, on the nature, ori- gins, and practical consequences of individu- al and group differences in intelligence. Its aim is to promote more reasoned discussion of the vexing phenomenon that the research has revealed in recent decades. The follow- ing conclusions are fully described in the major textbooks, professional journals and encyclopedias in intelligence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jdauriemma 7y ago
    Those bell curves don't control for environmental and other non-genetic factors, making your statements - insofar as they are based on the document you linked - irrelevant to the conversation.
    - toomim 7y ago
barry-cotter 7y ago
You can’t be stripped of a Nobel prize.
- 0xADEADBEE 7y ago
  Looks like he sold his medal [0] to ameliorate his loss of earnings; perhaps that's to what GP was referring. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Wats...
  - wdbbdw 7y ago
    He never actually sold it [0]; a billionaire just paid him some cash instead and Watson got to keep his prize. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-billionaire-usmanov-james-watson-nobel-prize-return-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/09/russian-bill...
    - tiles 7y ago
      Rather than public crucifixion, it looks like James Watson actually did quite well for himself?
wdbbdw 7y ago
'Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, said that most experts on intelligence “consider any black-white differences in I.Q. testing to arise primarily from environmental, not genetic, differences.” Dr. Collins said he was unaware of any credible research on which Dr. Watson’s “profoundly unfortunate" statement would be based.' [0] I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence, though at 2.5 hours long it may be a bit too thorough. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-geneti... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc7qBS1Ujo edited for formatting
- deogeo 7y ago
  Dr. Francis is either unfamiliar with, or being profoundly misleading of, expert opinion, as surveys show: "In the current study, EQCA experts wereasked what percentage of the US Black-White differences in IQ is, in their view, due to environment or genes. In general, EQCA experts gave a 50–50 (50% genes, 50% environment) response with a slight tilt to the environmental position (51% vs. 49%; Table 3). When EQCA experts were classified into discrete categories (genetic, environmental, or 50–50), 40% favored an environmental position, 43% a genetic position, and 17% assumed 50–50." - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406 > I think this video [1], does a good job of attacking a lot of race science and intelligence 'Attacking' is a good description, as the author of that video went to great lengths to mislead. For example, he says the author of The Bell Curve doesn't understand what 'hereditary' means. But the definition the video author gives for 'hereditary', and the definition given in the book he's reviewing, match almost perfectly. So how did he come to that conclusion? He went out of his way to find a live interview where the book author fumbled his answer, instead of giving the definition from the book he's reviewing, or as you more accurately put it, attacking.
  - wdbbdw 7y ago
    While the quote you pulled from that survey seems to contradict what Dr. Collins said in his statement, the two sentences before that one seem more problematic for the idea that there's even a difference in IQ that can be attributed to race: "There was little to no support for separate subgroup norms for different racial, ethnic, or social groups or for people with different nationalities (natives vs. immigrants), with the percentage of experts favoring separate norms below 25%. There was no clear position among experts regarding environmental and genetic factors in the US Black-White difference in intelligence." Maybe Dr. Collins rubs shoulders with experts other than those surveyed here, who knows. Looking at the SD in the survey responses suggests that the position of the researchers polled in this survey wasn't accurately represented by the quote you posted. The example you use to critique the video I posted is also not very generous, and is a pretty lame rebuttal to what was a very extensive attack on the ideas presented in "The Bell Curve". Do you have any critiques on the more relevant points that the video actually makes? E.g. what is intelligence anyway and how can it be measured, if at all? Or, presuming that IQ is an accurate measure of intelligence, then how to square the supposition the Bell Curve makes about an idiocracy-style drop in IQ points with the Flynn effect? Another relevant question is what exactly is the scientific support for "race" as anything other than a meaningless label[0]? For example, in the interview of Charles Murray conducted by Sam Harris for his podcast, Murray used Barack Obama as an example of a typical black man, saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, even supposing that there is a difference in IQ between the races, it wouldn't justify denying a job to someone like Barack Obama if he came in applying for one. But, like, why is Obama black and not white? Have you seen a picture of Obama's mom? She's the whitest white lady from Kansas. I was recently working on some cancer project and I had a spreadsheet of the subjects' self-reported race, as well as genetic ancestry results showing the percentage of African ancestry and European ancestry. Some of the respondents who self-reported as African American had 97% European ancestry. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-gen...
paganel 7y ago
You would have think that him winning a Nobel prize would have made him aware that IQ tests are a scam, apparently he didn’t.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Hell, look at the insane, wholly unscientific public crucification of James Watson for commenting, totally reasonably, on this very subject. Watson wasn't crucified, or anything remotely analogous to it, his comments weren't particularly reasonable, and even his own near immediate apology explicitly noted that there was no scientific basis for them. (Though he has since returned to repeating them; the whole thing is weird since at the time he first made them, there was a very recent piece of work which could have been cited as support for the geography/IQ link he suggested, but in between then and the time he went back to issuing them that work had been torn apart for gross methodological errors, including deliberately excluding data to fit the intended conclusion.) > Stripped of a Nobel prize for suggesting that two and two may equal four. He wasn't stripped of a Nobel prize, and he absolutely wasn't suggesting two plus two may equal four; he made an at best thinly supported claim about geography and IQ combined with a completely unsubstantiated claim about the premises of development policy toward Africa, and drew a dire conclusion from that combination.

n4r9 7y ago

That Noah Carl one is interesting, hadn't heard about that. The Cambridge college actually conducted a formal investigation with a panel led by a Professor, and published a statement [0] explaining their decision to retract the fellowship. The reasons cited were lack of research ethics and integrity in Carl's work, poor scholarship, and the risk of the college being used as a platform to promote racist views. Frankly, this seems like a measured response to a fairly standard complaint. Perhaps the only part of it that grates me is the public and "outraged" nature of the complaint. Without knowing much more about Carl's actual work, I suppose the outstanding question is, if the reasons above are true then how did he get the offer in the first place? [0] https://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/files/Statement%20by%20Master%20for%20website_outcome%20FINAL30%20April%202019.pdf https://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.st-edmunds.cam.ac...

barry-cotter 7y ago
Yeah, if you get to pick the committee you can get them to report whatever you want, whether you explicitly instruct them as to what to find or not. Read his work for yourself and come to your own conclusions. His research gate profile. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noah_Carl https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noah_Carl His website. https://supportnoahcarl.com/ https://supportnoahcarl.com/ > Since I was fired, over 600 academics have signed a petition supporting me , and several leading newspapers have published articles criticising the college’s decision. The support I’ve received so far has been incredible! But petitions and newspaper articles aren’t enough. If we want to safeguard academic freedom, and freedom of speech more generally, we need to start imposing real, material costs on the institutions that buckle under activists’ pressure.
- mayniac 7y ago
  > Since I was fired, over 600 academics have signed a petition supporting me He initially got fired because (almost) 600 academics signed an open letter casting doubt on his work, on top of 800 students [0]. Also, I don't really think that "read his work for yourself" is a valid argument. For one, you're talking hours, if not days or weeks of research, which isn't reasonable. And secondly, unless the person you're responding to knows sociology well, they're probably not going to be a good judge of his work. [0] https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-letter-no-to-racist-pseudoscience-at-cambridge-472e1a7c6dca https://medium.com/@racescienceopenletter/open-letter-no-to-...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

plumednom 7y ago

Whoa crap, I googled hypatia and realized I've been seeing her profile on OKCupid for like 15 years now. Glad I'm the only nerd who can't keep a relationship together!

charlesu 7y ago

An introductory psychology book that didn't give alternatives to g wouldn't be a very good textbook. g is easy to replicate but it doesn't really explain anything. It literally just proves that there's a correlation between cognitive tasks. That answers a what but not a why.

barry-cotter 7y ago
I would agree if the alternatives were held to the same standards. As is teaching Sternberg or Gardner’s theories alongside g is like teaching Lamarck alongside Darwin.