4 ms·
It is generally a good idea to stay skeptical of all IQ research. A very large part of population IQ has been nothing more than racially motivated pseudo-scienc
by runarberg 3y ago
It is generally a good idea to stay skeptical of all IQ research. A very large part of population IQ has been nothing more than racially motivated pseudo-science.
This is doubly true of any work by Richard Lynn. He is now thoroughly disgraced as a scientist. Guilty of knowingly misrepresenting data to further his political viewpoints which include white supremacy.
- blastonico 3y ago[flagged]
- runarberg 3y agoThat may be, particularly if you get to define what “brilliant” means, and I never stated otherwise. However that says nothing about the validity of using IQ as a population statistic. In other words, even if IQ is a useful metric for an individual, that doesn't make it a valid metric of a population. And on top of that, this says nothing of the political motivation of the researchers. I claim that Richard Lynn is a disgraced scientist who has been found guilty of misrepresenting data to further his views of white supremacy and that many researchers doing population IQ are engaging in pseudo-science, and I stand by it. Furthermore, I find your insult uninspiring. I don't know my IQ and I don't care to find out. It is probably below 100—as it is for half of any given population. How smart I sound is irrelevant.