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