283
Scientist cited in push to oust Harvard’s Claudine Gay has links to eugenicists
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
283 points (96.1% liked)
News
23284 readers
4000 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I'll wait.
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.
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.
Odd how little it matters, almost as if there is nothing there to begin with. Like prayer.
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.