IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle (2019)

> Is the threat of being sued for "not being nice enough" an improvement for society?

I never said anything about force, nor certainly anything about suing people for not being nice (which is so ridiculous it barely warrants a response...) You're reading a great deal more into what I said than what I actually said, and in a very uncharitable way.

> I think there are more important things than compassion, e.g. work/status, marriage and family

Smart people will be more likely to support social policies that help people in those regards if they are taught to be compassionate from a young age. I'm earnestly surprised to receive pushback on what I'm suggesting, and it's probably because you don't understand what I'm suggesting. Maybe providing a concrete example of what I propose will help you understand what I mean: one possibility is to encourage clever kids to participate in intellectually inclusive extramural activities where they can form social bonds with people less clever than themselves. Track and field or the swim team are two good options, contrasted with science olympiad (which is generally inaccessible to dull children.)

> Be kind. Don't be snarky.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article

A scientific theory could be considered political only if you think Popper's definition is fundamentally flawed. I don't think his definition is wrong though and i have yet to see someone arguing over the basics since the 80s (nowadays its more bayesians vs frequentists).

> I find it really naive to treat science like some kind of objective methodology that can output unbiased data. Its complete fantasy.

No bayesian scientific will treat science like this.

> "Science" is much more of a set of institutions and social regard for those institutions than an objective methodology

Wrong, there is methodology. Scientific consensus is still the best approximation of the reality we have. It might be wrong, but it is wrong for the right reasons.

> We often just want to throw money and scientists at an issue, and get out good "science" but thats like managers hiring 50% more programmers for 50% better/more code, we know the details are what matters.

Pad argument, this is not comparable.

> At the end of the day, "science" in the real world is a lot of professor vying for tenure, caught in publish or perish, funding coming from self-preserving institutions, and a bunch of overworked grad students. Its a lot of companies making a buck, too.

Yes, good point.

> Everything is political! Everything. If you see something like science, religion, art, anything as apolitical, that probably means its just reinforcing prevailing politics.

I see math as apolitical. Tell me how i'm reinforcing capitalism and liberalism. If you can't, this argument is invalid.

> Check out Anarchistic Epistemology if this idea is of any interest.

Ok, now i see, why you're against the scientific method. Popper's falsification have been largely improved by epistemologist thanks or Feyerabend's critics, and he is right about the "consistency" criterion that was dumped in all fields except medecine and social science. However this epistemologic theory is old and its argument were already based on old discoveries (galileo, newton) or misrepresentation of newer ones (i think a dozen papers were written against his vision of Einstein, and i find his critics on Feynman really undeserved). If you have knowledge of any epistemologic book[0] on this theory updated with new knowledge i'd like to read it.

[0] Or any living philosopher since nowadays its more about short papers than books in the philosophical field.