3 ms·

> ignoring obvious heritability of things like wealth and social status He addresses that in the section section - besides the intro, he leads with it: "the n

> ignoring obvious heritability of things like wealth and social status He addresses that in the section section - besides the intro, he leads with it: "the next generation becomes semi-famous fashion designers and TV personalities and journalists, which seem like typical jobs for people who are well-connected and good at performing class, but don't need to be amazingly bright. Sometimes they become politicians, another job which benefits from lots of name recognition. But I've tried to avoid mentioning these careers, and focus on actually impressive achievements that are hard to fake. And also, none of these families except the Tagores were fantastically rich; there are thousands or millions of families richer than they are who don’t have any of their accomplishments. For example, Cornelius Vanderbilt's many descendants are famous only for being very rich and doing rich people things very well (one of them won a yachting prize; another was an art collector; a third was Anderson Cooper)."

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
True, but that's an example of the endless hedging I mentioned: His writing style is very good at throwing in little counter examples here and there to give a "both sides" type impression, but then he pokes holes in the counter-arguments in the build-up to the conclusion he actually wants to present. If you read a few paragraphs past your quote, Scott comes right out and declares the "genetics" is the explanation that he thinks is correct: > The other obvious answer is “genetics!” I think this one is right He then applies some softball counter-arguments to the genetics argument to hedge and give the "both sides" treatment. However, the article is clearly structured to give a tour of possible arguments while subtly giving the most credence and the least hedging to the genetics argument. Combined with the not-so-subtle declaration from Scott that "I think this one is right" in the middle of the article, he expertly walks the reader into the conclusion he wants while making them feel like they came to that conclusion on their own after an objective tour of the research.
- vkou 5y ago
  Agreed. This sort of thing is also present in this very article, in the end. When he postulates the alien theory, he starts off with an interesting and sensible premise, but then completely goes off the rails. COVID isn't analogous to a quantum memetic disease, which a 'human' cannot hope to grasp, it's analogous to a really, really bad flu that spreads like wildfire and kills and maims a lot of people. These aren't concepts that are inconceivable to a 'human', the 'humans' are just closing their eyes and ears to what they don't want to see and hear. There are many other problems with that analogy, but they all sum up to making the 'humans' seem way more reasonable than reality affords them. Does his theory communicate something interesting? Yes. Is it nearly as impactful as he makes it sound? Hell, no.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Are you accusing him of anything else than having an opinion, and arguing for it?
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    I think the fact is that he presents himself as speaking from a highly informed, relatively unbiased presentation of a subject he finds interesting. In fact, he is arguing for a position. Reading an article meant to be informative vs reading an article meant to convince you of a position are two very different things.
    - haberman 5y ago
      The ideal is that an author is unbiased before seeing the evidence, then forms an opinion based on the strength of the evidence. An article that chronicles such a journey, presenting an opinion but also the strongest counter-arguments to that opinion, is about the best one can hope for in scientific writing.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      I mean, it's hard to be informed and also not have a position. I think the best you can do is read an article about the information that convinced the author (and the information that made them less confident).

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

True, but that's an example of the endless hedging I mentioned: His writing style is very good at throwing in little counter examples here and there to give a "both sides" type impression, but then he pokes holes in the counter-arguments in the build-up to the conclusion he actually wants to present. If you read a few paragraphs past your quote, Scott comes right out and declares the "genetics" is the explanation that he thinks is correct: > The other obvious answer is “genetics!” I think this one is right He then applies some softball counter-arguments to the genetics argument to hedge and give the "both sides" treatment. However, the article is clearly structured to give a tour of possible arguments while subtly giving the most credence and the least hedging to the genetics argument. Combined with the not-so-subtle declaration from Scott that "I think this one is right" in the middle of the article, he expertly walks the reader into the conclusion he wants while making them feel like they came to that conclusion on their own after an objective tour of the research.

vkou 5y ago
Agreed. This sort of thing is also present in this very article, in the end. When he postulates the alien theory, he starts off with an interesting and sensible premise, but then completely goes off the rails. COVID isn't analogous to a quantum memetic disease, which a 'human' cannot hope to grasp, it's analogous to a really, really bad flu that spreads like wildfire and kills and maims a lot of people. These aren't concepts that are inconceivable to a 'human', the 'humans' are just closing their eyes and ears to what they don't want to see and hear. There are many other problems with that analogy, but they all sum up to making the 'humans' seem way more reasonable than reality affords them. Does his theory communicate something interesting? Yes. Is it nearly as impactful as he makes it sound? Hell, no.
BurningFrog 5y ago
Are you accusing him of anything else than having an opinion, and arguing for it?
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  I think the fact is that he presents himself as speaking from a highly informed, relatively unbiased presentation of a subject he finds interesting. In fact, he is arguing for a position. Reading an article meant to be informative vs reading an article meant to convince you of a position are two very different things.
  - haberman 5y ago
    The ideal is that an author is unbiased before seeing the evidence, then forms an opinion based on the strength of the evidence. An article that chronicles such a journey, presenting an opinion but also the strongest counter-arguments to that opinion, is about the best one can hope for in scientific writing.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    I mean, it's hard to be informed and also not have a position. I think the best you can do is read an article about the information that convinced the author (and the information that made them less confident).