I shouldn’t even ask, but…what the actual fuck are you gibbering about? Jesus.
Not surprised that you are projecting your inability to grasp things on others; again, you are ignoring that tomndebb said “if Harris used this example”. Indeed that is an option. So he is therefore now not making a point against Harris, but your clarification then makes the idiocy of using that example against peer review to not go to Harris, but to you.
Interesting article. It notes that those genes are just a very small fraction of an unknown number that affect intelligence, but if this is confirmed, it will probably be the first of many such discoveries. And eventually someone will do population studies and find out if prevalence for these genes varies by population, and we’ll have real data instead of Rushton/Lynn/Murray-style ass-derived conclusions to look at for questions like this.
I have little doubt that if we comprehensively compared genotypes to studies of intelligence and other forms of mental acuity, we could probably identify not only some alleles that indicate a propensity for intelligence in one form or another, but we would also identify different demographic groups with a propensity for higher or lower academic ability. Whether those genetic difference have a greater or lessor impact than upbringing and environment would still be an unanswered question (IMHO, the majority of one’s physical and mental well being is determined by nutrition and social interaction at very young ages.).
And I am of the firm belief that if such a comprehensive study were to be carried out, there would be no overall correlation found between intelligence and skin pigment.
:smack:
I did not ignore the “if”: it was the focus of my point. I was just trying to note that instead of speculating on what Sam was up to, he/she/they could just listen to the short segment and then offer an informed judgment.
Not my problem that you are looking more foolish here, the point that you are missing is that **tomndebb **had one option that can be disregarded indeed: what the “if” implied, so that choice is gone: we know now that **Sam did not say that foolish thing about peer review.
**
The other option is the one you are trying to tap dance furiously away and you are not getting out of it: It was **you ** then who brought forward that dumb attempt at disparaging peer review, just admit you did not think that properly.
Hoo boy. :rolleyes:
I’m not tap dancing away from anything: you lost the plot long ago.
Your great revelation, that it was I and not Sam who used the example to disparage peer review, is nothing I have ever denied. My only point – and I really don’t know why you can’t understand this — is that tomndebb would not have had to issue a conditional statement starting with i"if", had they just listened for a few minutes to learn for themselves what Sam said, without my having to report on it. Sheesh.
And if you had spent a few minutes providing an accurate description of what it is that you are talking about, instead of asking others to do homework in order to ferret out the meaning of your posts, you wouldn’t need to have this point of yours.
Everyone understands your point, that you want us to listen to this podcast. You don’t get the point that we don’t want to.
Your avoidance of your need to take back your sorry point about peer review is duly noted. And that is what I’m pointing at, when you plant idiotic seeds of doubt about peer review it shows who you really are.
You don’t get the point that I don’t give a fuck whether you listen to it or not. I do wish you would refrain from commenting on it if you don’t listen, but it’s a free country.
If you knew what I have found and posted many times before in the SDMB regarding climate change you would know that the popular press is not a good place to get science information.
In other discussions about peer review I have seen that a lot of the complains do come from the medical field, and indeed a lot of the examples the article touch are related to it. In any case peer review is not the end of the process, but it magnifies the reach of an idea among researchers. As noted many times, Murray and others are running away from peer review, and that is a big clue that what they peddle is not gonna be accepted until he follows the path.
So yes, there are issues with peer review, but also when I remember the controversies that took place in climate science when deniers managed to publish some papers tells me that one important feature of peer review is that it also uncovers the bullshit journals that allowed trash to be published. So yes, your point was idiotic.
New takedown of Murray/Harris:
They make the same point I do about the Flynn effect, and have the same conclusion – it’s much too early to make any conclusion at all about whether genetics are involved in average test score disparities.
Shit, I was just about to start a thread based on a subsequent Sam Harris podcast but that will have to wait.
They quote Sam’s point here, one which I find pretty much irrefutable, but then never meaningfully address it.
Here again we see the slippery cherry picking with only mentioning the environmental correlation and not the biological one which is even stronger.
Murray may dispute this but I don’t think Sam would.
This is just rank sophistry.
This was in a section far down from the first mention of adoption in which they finally admit the biological parents mattered more. But even this supposed rebuttal only really says that these adoptive children’s parents could have given them shitty genes and shitty parenting but, due to giving them up for adoption, only gave them the former.
No shit. Even Murray did not dispute this. He used the analogy of corn plants grown in a desert, for instance.
Egregious straw man. Total bullshit.
This looks like a valid point. So let’s see the studies based on this standard practice!
How many of those subscribed to this thread choked on this part after cheering everything up to this point ?
Another fair point. I would be very glad for them to talk more specifically about the English versus the Spanish versus the Slavs versus the Congolese, etc.
This was apparently intended to be a reductio ad absurdem which would paralyze me with self-contradiction. But it didn’t read that way to me. I don’t have any particular objection to the hypothetical research described.
After 20 years it is still much too early.
Well, thanks a lot for showing all that you are willfully ignoring that that is not the issue that many do have a beef with Murray and Harris. Here is a hint: there are the items that iiandyiiii me and others have made a point of. And even the professors in the cite made.
As it is the point I made that even the writers of the piece iiandyiiii cited also noticed how shifty Harris is, I will have to say that the criticism stands: Harris, as well as Murray, sets so many scape hatches that his ship sinks with little help. Or IOW, might as well consider him as not having an opinion that is meaningful.
My criticisms of Harris (and Murray, though my estimates of his intelligence are far lower than of Harris, and thus I hold him to a much lower standard) still stand, and aren’t refuted by anything you’ve posted, SlackerInc that I have seen. Considering how highly you seem to think of his intelligence, you should also hold him to a high standard on issues like this that are so closely tied to the worst oppression and brutality in American history, and he failed to offer any challenge at all to Murray’s bullshit (instead focusing on a few shreds of at least slightly accurate science that Murray hangs his hat on). Harris should be ashamed of himself. Doesn’t mean he’s evil, or stupid, but he still fucked up big time, and I imagine his ego is preventing himself from seeing it and trying to make up for it.
Your perseverance here has really been something to behold. As for me, I’ve been down that road (both arguing with Bell Curve enthusiasts and trying to talk sense into SlackerInc.) It’s a hazardous path you travel. Godspeed.
I think it’s interesting how people tried to ding me for not being specific enough earlier. Then in response to these Vox pieces, I have gotten extremely specific, and no one has any specific response. Simply stating that none of my logical points, or evidence I have provided (with citations) refute anything, is not an argument.
I didn’t address your specific responses because they didn’t have anything to do with my specific criticism of Harris and Murray. I did link to that other criticism (though I only mentioned the Flynn effect point and the conclusion, neither of which you responded to), and I appreciate that you took the time to address it, but my earlier specific criticism of Harris and Murray stands. The charitable interpretation, IMO, is that Harris is smart enough to realize he should have challenged Murray, but his ego prevents him from seeing it. The uncharitable interpretation is that he isn’t as smart as he (and you) thinks he is.