The book might have some flaws but this article is flat out reactionary drivel. Example slop: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ajgq!,w_1456,c_limit,f_we

The book might have some flaws but this article is flat out reactionary drivel. Example slop: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ajgq!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa1b9db0a-18f6-483a-b7ba-a6cd4b87a32b_2030x1128.png https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!ajgq!,w_1456,c_limit... What the research _actually_ suggests is something more like a combination of those pictures. Except that the scientific research isn't framed in terms of "bad behavior". So that alone should give you a clue about where this blog post is coming from. That image alone exposes the worldview of the person who wrote this, something like this: ~some people are good quality, some people are bad quality. if you're born as a bad quality person, it's something like bad luck / your fault for falling into bad behavior, no wonder you're struggling. you need to work harder but it might just be that you're a dud.~