
How outrage mobs silence academics – and what we can do to stop them - headalgorithm
https://bigthink.com/Charles-Koch-Foundation/outrage-mobs
======
gfvcdbjsnkm
> While the article was not meant to be controversial, it generated a sizable
> negative response, particularly on social media. This was closely followed
> by an open letter signed by over five hundred academics to the journal's
> editors alleging (falsely) many ethical lapses and harms– this resulted in
> the article being retracted (an unprecedented move).

This isn't a social media mob. This is professional review and response by
academic peers. Retractions are part of the process, and are issued when bad
research happens. The fact that so many peers called her out for doing bad
research is basically indicative of the general consensus about her being
wrong and publishing wrong ideas.

------
AftHurrahWinch
> How outrage mobs silence academics...

How seriously should one take an article when the author can't be bothered to
find any examples of it to include in the article?

> Rebecca Tuvel, a philosopher and assistant professor at Rhodes college, in
> 2017 published an article...

Still at Rhodes, still teaching, still publishing...

> Sarah Bond, an assistant professor of classics at the University of Iowa,
> published an article...

Still at Iowa, still teaching, still publishing...

¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
deogeo
Harvard professor fired over factually correct claim about IQ variance:
[https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-
vindicate...](https://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-summers-vindicated-
by-new-study.html)

Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from
function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin:
[https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-
strip...](https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/dna-pioneer-james-watson-stripped-of-
honors-over-reprehensible-racist-views/)

Very liberal professor pressured to resign over claim that whites should not
be encouraged to stay home from campus:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein)

Published paper on IQ variance suppressed:
[https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-
a-p...](https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-
paper-down-the-memory-hole/)

For every academic that speaks up, many others see what happens to them, and
decide to keep quiet.

~~~
gfvcdbjsnkm
> Nobel winning co-discoverer of DNA stripped of honors and removed from
> function over claim that the lower African IQ is genetic in origin

He is still wrong about that claim despite being one part of a team that
discovered the structure of DNA over half a century ago. Also, why does being
a pioneer mean that he automatically deserves respect? He is an extremely foul
person, according to basically everyone who has met him (including close
friends of mine) and has done little to nothing to earn anyone's respect since
that initial work.

~~~
deogeo
> He is still wrong about that claim

Do you have a source for this? I've yet to see a convincing debunking
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence)
included), and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ)
claims IQ is between 57% and 86% heritable.

And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite, which has way less evidence
supporting it, and lots opposing it.

~~~
gfvcdbjsnkm
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004)

[edit to include accessible version: [http://sci-
hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0...](http://sci-
hub.tw/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798401027002004)]

> And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite

Maybe this is because it's bad science. Being a critical thinker is a major
aspect of being a scientist, and generally you should not be employed as a
scientist if you are not capable of critical thinking.

You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias.

~~~
deogeo
> You're basically ranting about reality having a left wing bias.

How is a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking heredity and intelligence
"reality having a left wing bias"? Isn't it the exact opposite? As for that
article ( _one_ article, compared to countless others on the wikipedia pages
I've linked to, that have not yet settled the debate. But this one totally
will) - I can tell from the claims in the abstract it's worthless. Lets look
at them:

(a) intelligence is unidimensional and can be represented by a single factor,
g; -- Multidimensional intelligence doesn't make it non-hereditary.

(b) intelligence is fixed within individuals and across generations; --
Doesn't make it non-hereditary - there's a range of variation, that -must- be
determined by genetics - otherwise trout could grow to be as intelligent as
humans.

(c) IQ tests accurately measure this fixed ability; -- That they are
inaccurate doesn't make them worthless. Neither does measuring only one axis
of a multidimensional intelligence.

(d) IQ tests are equally valid across racial, ethnic, and cultural groups; --
If true, that implies race and ethnicity affect IQ and intelligence.. exactly
what this article claims to disprove?

(e) intelligence determines individuals’ professional and social standings; --
But it is _correlated_ to it: [https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-
intelligence](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence) Is
this trying to say because IQ isn't perfectly deterministic of success, then
it's worthless as a measure?

(f) environment plays little role in determining an individual’s intelligence;
-- It plays between 43% and 14% of the role, as per my wikipedia link.

(g) the intelligence of populations is deteriorating over time; -- How does
disproving this in any way disprove the link between ethnicity and
intelligence?

(h) scores on IQ tests are consistent with classical statistical and
measurement theory. -- They're not happy that some tests don't produce a
normal distribution. Why this would invalidate all the conclusions eludes me.

Each premise is refuted on the basis of historical, sociological,
psychological, and statistical evidence. -- Each premise is needlessly strict.
If they held true, determining an intelligence-race link would be _easier_ ,
but even if they're all false, it doesn't even remotely disprove the link.
It's the classic "the model is imperfect and therefore entirely useless"
criticism.

In general, I'd suggest you be more skeptical when a single, low-impact
article with barely any data behind it claims to settle a grand debate.

~~~
gfvcdbjsnkm
> And no-one gets fired for claiming the opposite, which has way less evidence
> supporting it, and lots opposing it. > one article, compared to countless
> others on the wikipedia pages I've linked to

One beats none. You did not link me to any actual arguments.

> a. Multidimensional intelligence doesn't make it non-hereditary.

If you had read the article, that is not a rebuttal against intelligence being
hereditary, it is a rebuttal against a vague and inconsistently-applied
benchmark, which is a common feature of shitty science

> b. Doesn't make it non-hereditary - there's a range of variation, that
> -must- be determined by genetics - otherwise trout could grow to be as
> intelligent as humans.

Again, this point is not arguing against the hereditary nature of
intelligence, but against the arbitrary benchmark applied. If you can't define
intelligence then how are you going to use it as a viable benchmark? And I
definitely think there is a case to be made that you are dumber than a trout
btw

> c. That they are inaccurate doesn't make them worthless. Neither does
> measuring only one axis of a multidimensional intelligence.

So what are they worth, then? What is their actual value? Am I just to assume
that they're valuable without any reason provided?

> d. If true, that implies race and ethnicity affect IQ and intelligence..
> exactly what this article claims to disprove?

You think race and ethnicity are genetically-derived? Oh honey, have I got
news for you lol

> e. But it is correlated to it. Is this trying to say because IQ isn't
> perfectly deterministic of success, then it's worthless as a measure?

The presumption being dunked on is that of causality, i.e. that genetics are
directly responsible for (i.e. cause) intelligence, as measured by IQ. If
there were a clear cause and effect relation you would also see the pattern
emerging consistently; there are plenty of counter examples that contradict
such a hypothetical effect, some cited in the article in case you failed to
read it

> f. It plays between 43% and 14% of the role, as per my wikipedia link.

I can make up numbers too. 69% 420% what do they mean? Show me the basis for
those numbers and then we can talk turkey

> g. How does disproving this in any way disprove the link between ethnicity
> and intelligence?

I actually found this point puzzling, didn't quite see how it fits. I do not
think it's something that either proves or disproves either side, though

> h. They're not happy that some tests don't produce a normal distribution.
> Why this would invalidate all the conclusions eludes me.

This is a fundamental presumption of the infamous racist and shitty science
book called the bell curve. It is based on the application of statistical
models that are not suited for the phenomena under investigation or the
sampling strategies that would be necessary to use in order to do good science
on that topic. In other words, this rebuttal demonstrates how the bell curve
is bad science.

> How is a mountain of circumstantial evidence linking heredity and
> intelligence

The 'mountains of circumstantial evidence' have been obtained through improper
research methods.

> Each premise is needlessly strict.

Ain't science a bitch!

> If they held true, determining an intelligence-race link would be easier,
> but even if they're all false, it doesn't even remotely disprove the link.
> It's the classic "the model is imperfect and therefore entirely useless"
> criticism.

You're presuming a link exists with no actual evidence, it's like the tail
wagging the dog. People who hunt for this link are almost always trying to
justify their prejudice beliefs, rather than be informed by science.

> In general, I'd suggest you be more skeptical when a single, low-impact
> article with barely any data behind it claims to settle a grand debate.

It's more than adequate compare to the zero research you use to support your
claim. And the fact that you consider this a grand debate is just adorable.

------
Cacklepot
What's the difference between outrage mobs and social movements in general?

Considering it was lobbying from outside groups that got being Trans
reclassified in the dsm and not an organically cultivated academic consensus
it seems that the 'good guys' are jabbing their fingers in the eye of science,
at least social sciences, as much as anyone else.

