Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 5 2022 06:21pm)
So your reaction to a quantifiable, testable, reproducible branch of science coming to a conclusion you disagree with, is to reject that entire branch of science.
Its "pseudoscience" when clear genetic inheritance can be shown in study after study, in conditions demonstrably not biased on social, economical, racial or ethnic basis.
I don't see any difference between your brand of anti-science and the people who reject all scientific evidence of global warming, or safety of GMO foods, or nuclear energy, or vaccines. There's no shortage of people who would claim that vaccines are a pseudoscience and point to the history of regulatory missteps like thalidomide or electroshock therapy. The main difference between human intelligence psychometrics and most other soft sciences and psychology is that you can actually isolate variables and set up reproducible studies to test hypotheses instead of just spreading dogmatic postulates the other fields believe in like 'diversity is always good'. The findings in The Bell Curve weren't based on speculation or pseudoscience, they stuck to the evidence and stated how much or how little it could demonstrate conclusively.
Bullshit. They actively misrepresented the data, including cherry picking the lower results and misrepresenting published findings to say they are applicable to the black population as a whole.
They took a matrix test that was done in Africa that doesn't translate to IQ, took the lower result from the poorer group, converted it to IQ even though it doesn't convert cleanly to IQ, and then said "this is the average result for South Africa". They were supremely dishonest and racist and literally nobody in psychology takes their book seriously.
inb4 giant wall of text because you think being long-winded is the same thing as being correct
This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jan 5 2022 06:45pm