
Academics’ Mobbing of a Young Scholar Must Be Denounced - andrenth
https://quillette.com/2018/12/07/academics-mobbing-of-a-young-scholar-must-be-denounced/
======
jtlisi
Wow, I shouldn't be surprised when I keep seeing this debate pop back up. This
is what I imagine goes through these peoples heads when they make these
claims.

> Why do people get upset when I claim people from minority/marginalized
> communities are less intelligent on a genetic basis. I'm just bringing it up
> because it does damage to our society when we don't realize that our current
> hierarchies are not based in empirical evidence. So maybe we should cut
> social programs. Just to be clear, I am not a racist and am not claiming
> that any individual of any race is less intelligent than another... But I
> feel really strongly about race science and I'm so brave for standing up to
> these SJW's and having a necessary conversation.

Also having read
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0152-x#...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-018-0152-x#Sec3),
this individual is trash. No mention of strong opposing arguments (Nisbitt,
Turkheimer, etc..) He did mention Flynn. However, he did so in the weirdest
way possible.

> "Note that there is nothing in science which rules this possibility out
> (Flynn, 2017)."

Seriously Noah...

Also the section where he talks about "The Pernicious Implications of the
Blank Slate" there is a really strange straw man about Mao. He picks a quote
from Mao about how kids are impressionable. He seems to have this idea that if
we don't pursue un-contextualized race science that it will lead to genocide.

At the end of the day, all you need to do is ask why academics like Carl are
interested in intelligence science as it pertains to race. It's not like there
isn't other topics within the study of intelligence. They approach this stuff
with a limited view of history and a smell of racial animus. The problem is
not the topic, people study IQ between races regularly. The problem is the
grandstanding that this science is important and ignored at our own peril.
There is a lot more work to do on the study of intelligence. They still don't
know why it has been rising; it has risen more than any gap between races in
the past 50 years. The idea that the racial IQ gap, which has been closing for
decades, should be used as a justification for cutting social programs is
fucked up. Seriously, when you ask these people why the IQ gap matters that's
the only actionable thing I have ever heard come out of this conversation.
Every time this comes up my blood boils as some white academic complains about
PC culture, while at the same time they can get paid boatloads of money by
conservative think tank for having their super "edgy" ideas.

~~~
throwaway5250
Glanced at that link, and not spotting any reason to regard this person as
"trash" (if indeed there ever is one).

What are they saying here that is objectionable, and what is your rebuttal?

~~~
jtlisi
So you think that if we don't promote science that studies the heritability of
intelligence as it pertains to race, it will lead to genocide?

I can't prove it empirically but evidence suggests Noah Carl is trash;
cultural items, ideas, or objects of poor quality. Note, there is nothing in
the science that rules this out. But it is clear Noah Carl has a keen interest
in race IQ science. But take a look at his cv
([https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-
contributions/204775...](https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-
contributions/2047758092_Noah_Carl)) that's not all he is interested in.

> A global analysis of Islamist violence > Net opposition to immigrants of
> different nationalities correlates strongly with their arrest rates in the
> UK

Hmmm, I wonder why it's so important to Noah to establish a heritable basis
for IQ. It's hard to look at Carl's work in good faith and not see that he
might not be the best voice on the historically troubled subject of the
heritability of IQ and race.

I feel it irresponsible to investigate the topic without a sense of caution.
It's hard to understate how horrifying the effects of scientific racism have
been in the past century alone. Based on his viewpoint and lack of attention
to environment factors, it seems likely Carl is trying to weaponize the topic
against other groups of people. IQ science is barely ready to be used in the
policy arena. Heritable differences between races can be an interesting topic.
But the people, like Carl, who are constantly drawn to the heritability of IQ
between races have to be viewed with a high degree of suspicion.

------
zimpenfish
I would consider anyone trying to defend "The Bell Curve" as academically
suspect. The book is demonstrably untenable nonsense.

Plus I'd take anything on Quillette with a huge pinch of salt - any
publication that employs Toby Young and pimps Jordan Peterson has an obvious
agenda.

~~~
tomohawk
Perhaps if you have a specific concern, you could share that instead of
attempting a guilty by association attack.

~~~
zimpenfish
> attempting a guilty by association attack

Just highlighting the bias of a publication which may colour its articles
about things like "academic freedom" in ways that are less than based in
reality and more in ideology. Any feelings of guilt by association is purely
down to readers themselves.

