There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists

Rufo described Jonatan Pallesen as “a Danish data scientist who has raised new questions about Claudine Gay’s use – and potential misuse – of data in her PhD thesis” in an interview published in his newsletter and on the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal website last Friday.

He did not tell readers that a paper featuring Pallesen’s own statistical work in collaboration with the eugenicist researchers has been subject to scathing expert criticism for its faulty methods, and characterized as white nationalism by another academic critic.

The revelations once again raise questions about the willingness of Rufo – a major ally of Ron DeSantis and powerful culture warrior in Republican politics – to cultivate extremists in the course of his political crusades.

The Guardian emailed Rufo to ask about his repeated platforming of extremists, and asked both Rufo and the Manhattan Institute’s communications office whether they had vetted Pallesen before publishing the interview. Neither responded.

blahsay ,

Wow Harvard has a lot of money and a good PR team. They’re managing to somehow switch the conversation so it’s somehow no longer about someone plagiarizing their entire career.

This is not a left or right issue.

son_named_bort ,

I’m shocked! SHOCKED!

Well, not that shocked.

DigitalTraveler42 ,

I like how this is all really starting to blow up in both Harvard and the ouster faction’s faces, because it really was just a bunch of rich anti-woke assholes throwing a tantrum over something stupid in order to have one less black person in a position of authority.

Also the fact that the female worst version of Joe Lieberman, Elise Stefanik, is one of the ring leaders of this should have told everyone that this is just performative political bullshit based in racism rather than the antisemitism she’s claiming.

I’m all for calling out antisemitism, but this wasn’t it.

jonne ,

How is it blowing up in their faces? They got their scalp, they’ve shown they can get rid of anyone they don’t like for bullshit reasons, and there’s going to be no consequences to either Rufo or Bill Ackman.

The fact that it’s all lies doesn’t matter, it didn’t matter when Rufo used misleading definitions of DEI or any of the other witch hunts he started. The mainstream media will just uncritically repeat what he says and go along with everything.

DigitalTraveler42 ,

While all fair points, but when a guy like Bill Ackman is getting press he’s losing, overall I’m just appreciative of any blowback coming their way.

rusticus ,

Fuck Bill Ackman. Love that his wife is taking it on the chin as she should.

jonne ,

Eh, it’s maybe a little bit funny to see how thin-skinned he is, but he’s not going to lose any business over this, and he got everything he wanted. He won, and he’s only pissed off that people on Twitter were mean to him about it.

rusticus ,

Thank you for simplifying it. This was a slam dunk move for corporatists whose primary goal is divide and conquer. Mission accomplished!

DarkGamer , (edited )
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

The 2019 paper is entitled Polygenic Scores Mediate the Jewish Phenotypic Advantage in Educational Attainment and Cognitive Ability Compared With Catholics and Lutherans. It argues that the high cognitive abilities of Ashkenazi Jews are “significantly mediated by group differences in the polygenic score” – that is, genetically caused. They speculate that “culture-gene coevolution” may influence “Jewish group-level characteristics” like high cognitive abilities.

It's controversial to say that different groups have different average IQ's now?

On the paper’s claims about Jews’ innately high intelligence, Panofsky said that this was a persistent trope among white supremacists that “fits into a larger narrative about Jewish conspiracies and the idea that Jews are controlling the problems of the world from behind the scenes”.

...and this is equivalent to blood libel? What an absurd position to take. Noting that Ashkenazim are smarter and have higher educational attainment on average doesn't imply that they secretly control the world.

There's lots of ways to criticize categorizing groups by IQ scores: point out that this is the average and incredibly intelligent individuals can emerge from many groups, cite the cultural bias of most IQ tests and how IQ tests may not be accurately measuring G, note that groups are adapted to different environments and on average each have different abilities because of these adaptations and none are objectively superior to another, point out that IQ is only ~57-80% heritable meaning that intelligence can arise, (or diminish,) from any group, etc.,

Honestly it seems like they are proving this asshole's point, that academia, (or at very least The Guardian,) is biased against information that doesn't fit with a political narrative. That said, many of his other views and conclusions drawn are abhorrent and I disagree with them vehemently; one can recognize group differences without suggesting racial hierarchy.

Edit: Originally I posted that heritability of IQ was 85%, and that was inaccurate.

Eldritch ,

It’s controversial to say that different groups have different average IQ’s now?

If it has anything to do with race or ethnicity. Uh yes.

DarkGamer , (edited )
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Groups don't stop having different average IQs simply because they are defined as racial or ethnic, intelligence is 57-80% heritable after all. What should be controversial is discrimination based on average test scores of other people, not acknowledgement of reality regarding differences between groups.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

the tests themselves are biased, and should not be used as a metric at all.

Eldritch ,

Groups don’t stop having different average IQs simply because they are defined as racial or ethnic,

But race and ethnicity themselves are not determinative.

intelligence is 85% heritable after all.

Citation needed. Most citations I could find said genetics may account or anywhere from 30 to 50% of a person’s intelligence. But they have no idea what genes would possibly be contributing to that and how. So basically it’s a hypothesis with zero proof. Either you are operating on junk science or straight up eugenicist.

While it is true that random groups of people may have different average IQs. It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc. Even then, IQ is not actually a useful measure of intelligence.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:

Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Thanks, I'll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.

It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc.

One cannot discount the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. Some twin studies are quite remarkable in illustrating the significant role it plays.

Eldritch ,

Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted. The twin studies are highly controversial for a number of reasons. But the results from them are not able to be generalized to the population at large in any way. And just to finish. Correlation is not causation. These studies pointed to interesting possibilities. Though That didn’t justify them still. But they ultimately prove nothing.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted.

Acknowledging heritability of IQ makes me neither of these things. There's a lot of studies confirming this all cited at the wikipedia link above. Guess they're all "junk science" because they don't fit with your philosophy.

Correlation is not causation.

One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

And again, IQ means little in the big scheme of things. It is not first among many differing attributes which are important to human beings’ survival, adaptation and growth.

Please stop trying to argue it is.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:

groups are adapted to different environments and on average each have different abilities because of these adaptations and none are objectively superior to another

Please don't project positions onto me that I do not hold. That's called the straw man fallacy.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.

I wasn’t projecting … I was stating how the balance of your responses provided a context.

capital ,

Or, stay with me here, it was directly related to the OP.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.

Did you read the article? That's what it's about.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Odd how little it matters, almost as if there is nothing there to begin with. Like prayer.

Eldritch ,

So. Where to start.

It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.

How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

All correlation can ever do is imply. Causation is not an implication. No amount of implications can prove causation. They are different things entirely.

You are correlating heavily with eugenicists. You are using the language of eugenics. The measures of eugenics. And the reasoning of eugenics. Now while it’s true, I cannot say what’s in your heart. All your pro eugenics talk maybe performative and pure bluster. Which honestly isn’t any better. However, if this is sincerely not what you’re doing. And you don’t think you are or don’t want to be seen as someone pro eugenics. I suggest you change up where you’re getting your information from. I’m not going to tell you where to go. Just suggest that maybe what you’re doing now isn’t working for you.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

That's probably because the article we're discussing is about a eugenicist's paper.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I manage to discuss articles about criminal acts without endorsement. Must be all the Midi-chlorianians I have. Take it on faith that I do.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I'll wait.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I was listing an example. I pointed out that it is possible to discuss awful things without endorsement. You are discussing g IQism and it’s good buddy eugenics and are giving everyone the impression that you are fans of both. Which you pretty much have to be. Once you assume the spiritual belief in the holy G you have to assume that there are people with less Holy Spirit than others. Meaning humanity can be evaluated by 1 number and ranked accordingly. At some level there is a cutoff of who is unfit to live and who is fit to live. Since more G is always good it differs from all other rankings.

You can’t apply this to anything else. Being a better long distance runner means very little. You could still be in bad health you could still die at a young age. You could still be a jerk. However Holy Spirit G is always good. You take up as much space and use the same level of resources as someone with less Holy Spirit. A plus with no downsides since it measures all aspects of the human mind. Belief in IQ and you are going to believe that humanity should get rid of those with less IQ.

As I told you before, it doesn’t act like anything else in existence. You aren’t a better human because you have a higher temperature, or eat more calories, or have darker skin. Which should set off massive alarm bells, because right now you are pleading for special treatment. A well known logical fallacy.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I wonder how many of those twin studies were not submitted to peer review because they found nothing. Ah yes publication bias.

agent_flounder ,
@agent_flounder@lemmy.world avatar

I suppose you actually assume the method of measuring is perfectly accurate and not biased in any way.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

I acknowledged this in my first post:

[to criticize categorizing groups by IQ scores] cite the cultural bias of most IQ tests and how IQ tests may not be accurately measuring G

I'm not sure what made you assume I thought IQ testing was perfectly accurate and unbiased. Lots of people here are arguing against positions they imagine I hold rather than what I actually wrote.

afraid_of_zombies ,

What units does G have or it is a fundamental constant? How does G interact with the physical brain, midi-chlorian perhaps? What particles make up G? Please show me the property table handbook that matches up G with other physical testable measurable units.

Prove to me that it is as real as gravity and temperature or volts. Because if you can’t I am throwing it in the basket of horoscopes.

DarkGamer , (edited )
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

It is a construct. One can argue that G / general intelligence factor does not exist, I believe it does since mental ability seems to correlate with general competence across many domains. I believe it's a better argument that IQ tests may not be an effective method of deriving it.

The g factor (also known as general intelligence, general mental ability or general intelligence factor) is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

afraid_of_zombies ,

I see. So you have faith that it is there, not evidence. And if your test is not good at finding it, it must be the test that is wrong not that you are trying to detect the undectable. The same logic can be applied to horoscopes, prayer, god, and Bigfoot. Did we make a detection? No? Oh well we must have been looking wrong. We have faith that it exists so any type of failure can be safely disregarded with our preconceived notions intact.

Your Midi-chlorianians don’t operate like anything else in science. In science we find out things exist by following the evidence, in Midi-chlorianians we assume something exists and find “evidence”. I wonder why they don’t give you hard evidence of their existence. Why does your god… sorry G spirit hate you so much?

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

There's plenty of debate about g in that article if you care to read it.

Your comparisons with bigfoot and horoscopes come across as glib and dismissive. Faith is defined by belief despite a lack of evidence. There's lots of evidence that g is a thing. I mentioned correlates.

Here's more evidence that general intelligence is actually a thing that can be measured.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Answer my questions. What units does G have? How does spiritual G interact with the physical human brain? What is the G particle? Is G quantized or fully analog? Why can’t you produce a property handbook with G as it “correlates” with other physical measurable testable things? Does G act like a point charge? Is there a counter-G and if so what equation models how they repeal? How much does it weight per units G? Does it move in waves or as particles?

You are using the rhythms of science without the actual science. You name the physical thing I can show you as much as you wanted to know about it and then some. But not your Midi-chlorianians. I have more evidence that ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness are real than G is because I can at least point out to eyewitnesses. No one even claims to have even seen G.

Now admit the father of eugenics is the person responsible for its invention as a concept.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

IQ is supposedly the measure of G, in which 100 is average human intelligence, and +-15 represents one standard deviation. It is a measurement based on population averages, derived from various forms of testing, and not some natural unit.

However, if you must insist that non-physical things don't exist, (like many mathematical and sociological constructs are,) note that intelligence has physical correlates.

Now admit the father of eugenics is the person responsible for its invention as a concept.

Okay, evidently he was. I fail to see why this is relevant though. Whether IQ is valid conceptually or not has nothing to do with the one who invented the concept; this is fallacious reasoning. It does, however, make it clear that you think veracity is at least in part determined by ideology of the messenger.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Of all the questions I asked you, you tried to answer one. Not a great start.

Averages don’t have to be unit less. I do agree with you however that IQ is not natural unit. It has very little whatsoever to do with the natural world. You know like the power of prayer.

I never once insisted that non-physical does not exist. I am clear that we have no evidence of non-physical things and as such we should put that stuff in the stuff outside of our knowledge. Like invisible unicorns. Yeah sure maybe they are real but no evidence so moving on.

Mathematics is a shit comparison. Math falls under symbols, sometimes those symbols match real world stuff and sometimes they don’t. There really isn’t an integral but there is stuff that we can model with it. Not the same thing at all with IQ. With IQ you claim to have developed a detection of the G-Spirit and your proof is that it came out to a round number. You started with the premise that G-Spirit is real and tried to invent evidence for it instead of finding evidence and detected the G-Spirit. What you are doing has no difference at all than those who dress in black and claim to have found ghosts on the history channel.

I am glad you bothered to look up your hero. It does matter. You see you said it yourself. IQism is a construct and when someone invents bullshit why they invent it really does matter. If I declare you unfit to live and demand you take me on faith do you have no right to question me?

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."

― Voltaire

DarkGamer , (edited )
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Of all the questions I asked you, you tried to answer one. Not a great start.

Oh you wanted me to respond to all the rhetorical bullshit you were projecting onto me? Sorry, no. I'd rather ignore that and try to have an adult conversation about this topic. I addressed some of your questions that weren't entirely bad faith projection by pointing out that IQ is sociological/behavioral, based on test averages, and does not measure anything physical.

I never once insisted that non-physical does not exist.

You clearly implied that g isn't a thing because it has no physical basis.

With IQ you claim to have developed a detection of the G-Spirit and your proof is that it came out to a round number.

What on earth are you talking about? It seems like you're arguing with what you imagine I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying. Do you understand average distributions of test results? Because they are a real thing and not "G-Spirit."

A reasonable criticism would be that these tests don't accurately measure G, or that G doesn't exist, instead it seems your position is that well-established ways to refer to these probabilistic distributions of test results, (with round numbers!) is equivalent to pseudoscience bullshit.

It's like saying inches are pseudoscience because the length is arbitrary and the basis for the metric is biased. Okay, but does that imply length doesn't exist? Our measurement of it may be arbitrary but we are measuring a real thing.

Similarly, general intelligence seems to be a thing, there are smart people and there are dumb people. Someone who experienced neurological developmental problems probably won't be as good at taking tests, or be as adept at skills that require complex abstract reasoning as someone with normal development. I don't believe this is a controversial statement.

Perhaps our rulers for measuring aren't the best, perhaps the person that invented the yardstick was an asshole, perhaps the units could be better defined, but none of that means that length doesn't exist. Just like intelligence, it's pretty clear that it does.

I am glad you bothered to look up your hero. It does matter.

Believing that G is a thing that may or may not be accurately measured by IQ doesn't make him my hero. Voltaire was a racist, does quoting him mean he is your hero and you agree with his ideology?

What you are doing has no difference at all than those who dress in black and claim to have found ghosts on the history channel.

A measurement of average human intelligence distribution is just like ghost hunters? You're not even wrong, you're clearly here in bad faith, and I'm done wasting my time with you. Good day.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Why doesn’t your G Spirit help you with better arguments? Are your Midi-chlorianians low? Sorry not sorry no one is buying your eugenics arguments today, go hang out with some racist WASPs at the country club and complain about it.

afraid_of_zombies ,

IQ tests are pseudoscience. The topurpose of the test was from the very beginning to decide which groups are unfit to live.

rustydrd ,
@rustydrd@sh.itjust.works avatar

Yes, it is highly controversial, and rightly so. First, an IQ is a number that is based on an intelligence test and intended to measure an individual’s cognitive ability in comparison with a reference population, typically with other people of similar ages and in the same country (i.e., the population that they belong to). Intelligence tests are meaningless for group comparisons such as comparisons between countries or ethnic/religious groups, and doing so represents a misuse and misinterpretation of IQ scores. Researchers are not “biased” against this based on their political opinions. They simply object to the objectionable use of these tests.

Second, group comparisons about intelligence are also problematic for a variety of other reasons, and studies that claim to find group differences tend to conflate them with other between-group differences (e.g., different socioeconomic, nutritional, educational influences, among others). These studies are essentially pseudo-science.

Finally, although genetics do seem to play a significant role for cognitive ability, it’s important to realize that statements like “IQ is x% heritable” are statistical estimates. These estimates are obtained by comparing sources of variance that can be attributed to shared vs. non-shared genetic and environmental influences. As such, any heritability estimate is specific to its social context (e.g., countries). In fact, heritability estimates tend to be higher in more equitable societies, because they reduce the impact of environmental influences (e.g., wealth, parental education), thus increasing the relative proportion of variance that can be attributed to genetics (but obviously genetics in, say, Sweden still work the same as they do in the US).

cmbabul ,

Motherfucking eugenics is making a comeback, Jesus they’ll be citing phrenologists next

HeyThisIsntTheYMCA ,
@HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world avatar

Dude I dunno. I’m disabled. Eugenics never left, people just got smarter talking about it.

cmbabul ,

A fair point, I’m autistic and have definitely had questions about kids, I’m not having them for different reasons but I guess I didn’t realize that IS eugenics in the moment. Nobody’s been feeling my skull though

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

Voluntarily eliminating heritable genetic diseases is also eugenics, unfortunately many people inappropriately associate the term exclusively with the atrocity of forced eugenics/genocide.

PhlubbaDubba ,

Well no, eugenics is the bad stuff, when you decide whether or not to have kids based on the likelihood for them to inherit traits for you you’d rather not pass along, that’s just family planning

thereticent ,

You are technically correct, but the practical thing to do is abandon the term when it’s not forced/tragic. No reason to rehabilitate the term.

And a fun but important fact is that genetic and heritable diseases are not necessarily the same. I went too long as a clinician conflating the two: veritasint.com/…/difference-between-genetic-and-h… (corporate link but correct and well written)

rusticus ,

Not understanding simple genetics is embarrassing. Don’t know what your training and degree are but that is unacceptable.

afraid_of_zombies ,

Who decides what a disease is and how do you ensure that they don’t make a mistake and the program is 100% voluntary with zero coercion ever?

afraid_of_zombies ,

I am very sorry. If it helps any at all you should know that the majority of people are wise enough to know that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. If we can cleanse people based on a disability we can cleanse people based on anything really. Maybe bald people are not fit to live, maybe ugly people, maybe short people, maybe brown, maybe woman with small boobs. Once humans are not the measure of all values, once science is replaced with bullshit like IQ, the values of the world are whatever the powers-that-be declare to be icky.

You have value, your value is the same as mine, your value is the same as everyone else. Fuck Nazis, fuck IQism, and fuck anyone who tries to make you or anyone else disabled feel like crap for the crime of existing.

rusticus ,

Broca’s area bitch!

afraid_of_zombies ,

Sure why not? For some reason Google news wants to tell me my horoscope every day, I know ani-vaxxers, I know people who swear by chiropractors and reki healing, I know gluten avoiders. Should we even discuss what happened to all the TV networks that used to run educational programs?

Maybe fuck it, maybe we are all heading back into the dark ages.

newthrowaway20 ,

Just wanna say some people have to really avoid gluten. It’s called celiac’s disease.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I am not talking about the Celiac crowd

bufordt ,
@bufordt@sh.itjust.works avatar

Sure, but when someone tells a server that they absolutely can’t have gluten, but then says that the fries cooked in the same oil as the breaded chicken fingers will be fine, they probably don’t have celiac disease.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •