It's funny that this is posted on HN since places on which you cannot speak any controversial opinions are the main way in which CC spreads. HN being one of those places by design.
'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
291–300 of 368 posts
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such rigorous scientific as the often refuted "Bell Curve." This is just modern day phrenology
IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor. This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics.
> IQ has been rigorously statistically proven as a very reliable predictor.
You're right, it rigorously shows how well you will do on IQ tests. That's a real useful metric, now isn't it?
> This is often disputed by impulsively triggered non-experts browsing chat forums, but not by serious academics.
This is often upheld by people with latent fascist sentimentalities that there is some genetical component that makes one group superior to the other.
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly didn't even read these wikipedia pages. Although they are about two different publications (one from 2002 and the other from 2006), each book is basically the exact same, and the latter presents the exact same flimsy evidence as the former. Also, from the contents of these very same wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#R... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Glo…
I am aware that some people dispute it, but the fact is that IQ scores are consistently lower for some races. Similar studies have been done and always reach the same conclusions. No one has been able to refute the raw data and it is easily replicated. The differences are self evident when comparing cities such as Lagos or Zimbabwe versus Hong Kong. Also observe that the Jews are extremely over represented in the lis…
See this recent submission/discussion here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253289
”Superior IQs associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests”
That rings true with observations I've made of high-IQ types, myself possibly included - I've generally done well on intelligence tests and with some types of intellectual endeavours, but that hasn't translated to life success, and I've suffered a lot of physiological (including neurological) illness. I've observed this pattern in plenty of others.
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, his other post is hot garbage. He's using his knowledge, wit and ability to obfuscate, ridicule and discredit the information critical to our well-being as a species – all the while committing character-assassination. It's honestly despicable. Let's look at it closer. > One of Watson’s obsessions has been to “improve” the “imperfect human” via human germline engineering. This is disturbing on many many levels. Fi…
I don't think Watson is after some narrow, technical relationship between a particular gene and a particular ability. Instead, he make wide, unconstrained and unscientific generalisations which can only be defended by shrinking what he says. To quote Watson: “I think now we’re in a terrible sitution where we should pay the rich people to have children.. if we don’t encourage procreation of wealthier citizens, IQ leve…
[flagged]
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strawman aside, down syndrome is just as common in black people as it is in white people, so you know, nobody was denying genetics play a role, they're just pointing out there isn't a proven correlation between "the white gene" and IQ like so many racism apologists want to believe.
You think it is racist to be curious about IQ variance across races? Why?
I am curious, it just turns out the world is more fluid and diverse (billions of people, millions of non-isolated genetic populations), and more interesting, than over simplified and debunked ideas like "5 races with known IQ stats".
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, this is a tired trope, climate change mostly boils down to well-established physics relating to energy transference which is pretty consistent to my understanding, here's Nasa also saying as much: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo...
What's a tired trope? Back in 2014, Nature did an entire series of articles that attempted to explain the "global warming pause".[1] And now, recent articles claim there never was a pause.[2] So it's apparent there is disagreement even among those scientists who are firm believers in global warming. [1] https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [2] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18122018/global-warming-h...
Did you actually read the second article you linked?
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strawman aside, down syndrome is just as common in black people as it is in white people, so you know, nobody was denying genetics play a role, they're just pointing out there isn't a proven correlation between "the white gene" and IQ like so many racism apologists want to believe.
If this were about "white racists", why would they rank themselves firmly below east asians and ashkenazi jews?
IDK, just sounds like more racism to me.
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you're just assuming that he is wrong based on your own presumptions without any actual knowledge about the subject. The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. This is exactly the problem of cancel culture. Just because he points out something you don't like you're suddenly a…
The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. Lior Pachter (who that link was from) is a Professor of Computational Biology at CalTech. His other post about Watson is good too: https://liorpachter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/the-perfect-hum... But you don't need to steal a Nobel prize…
>And yes, "scientific" racism is wrong as in incorrect, as any honest search will show.
Not at all, proof of absence is famously difficult.
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you're just assuming that he is wrong based on your own presumptions without any actual knowledge about the subject. The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. This is exactly the problem of cancel culture. Just because he points out something you don't like you're suddenly a…
> The question is who is most likely to be right, a nobel prize winning Ph.D. specialized in molecular biology, genetics and zoology, who worked 20 years at Harvard etc, etc....or you. Or we could, instead of argument to authority, look at the actual research in the field, which doesn't support Watson's conclusions. (Neither does it strongly support their negation.) And Watson's expertise is in the low-level mechanic…
> By “he” do you mean Rosalind Franklin?
"he" obviously refers to the person you've been talking about: Watson.
Re: 'Cancel Culture' Comes to Science?
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Two and two may equal four" being a bunch of nonsensical racist slandering based on no evidence. Every result ever has pointed that all races and genders are equally "intelligent" and well-suited to the same tasks. And trust me, there's been no lack of racist scientists. It's just that bullshit doesn't stick.
The fact that your comment is gray means to me there are a lot of racists on HN. Sigh... And worse, they're thinking they're not racist because they think they have scientific backing for their beliefs..
It was just the other day where I someone on here unironically mention social darwinsism in a positive light on here. Honestly I probably need to quit HN because despite the number of informative articles and comments I read, it's more of less just becoming a collection of shit show comment sections (albeit that may be a product of me clicking on threads that encourage this). Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems a number of these arctlces wouldn't have ever been allowed on the site a few years ago, but I wasnt as active back then as I am now.