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.
I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:
Thanks, I’ll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.
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.
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.
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.
One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?
So. Where to start.
Wikipedia is not a source. Wikipedia themselves go to great lengths on many pages. Saying many different ways that they are not a source or inherently reliable, etc etc etc.
IQ was literally popularized and used to justify eugenics. By eugenecists.
IQ testing has heavy cultural and linguistic biases that keeps it from being an accurate measurement of anything.
IQ itself is pseudoscientific bullshit. Not taken seriously by any scientific field. It has as much importance and factual bearing as surveys in Cosmo magazine or Teen Beat, Tiger Beat, etc etc etc.
It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.
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.
That’s probably because the article we’re discussing is about a eugenicist’s paper.
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.
I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:
Please don’t project positions onto me that I do not hold. That’s called the straw man fallacy.
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.
Or, stay with me here, it was directly related to the OP.
Did you read the article? That’s what it’s about.