at some point you should tackle the methodology of the "IQ of Nations" material that "race realists" like the late Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Emil Kirkegaard have made so much of in recent years
By doing multiple searches on my grownup computer (not to be confused with a cellphone) I learned that you're already familiar with Kirkegaard and his site OpenPsych. Kirkegaard is still around, apparently more well-funded than ever by his fixated cult sponsors.
I know. It’s exhausting. But that “research” continues to have a lot of resilience with the “race realists”, notably so here on Substack. I continue to see “national IQ” stats cited as authoritative, typically with no reference to specific studies or their origin. My take on that is “because Numbers.” Having no baseline connotation, numbers are unambiguous and objective, and hence are able to pose as Conclusive. Refuting the methodology can therefore be dismissed as “Woke apologism.” Granted, it doesn’t help that sloppy Woke apologism exists, and it have unfortunately received enough influence and media attention to inadvertently aid in efforts to discredit refutations of racist pseudoscience that are bedrock solid in their analysis.
at some point you should tackle the methodology of the "IQ of Nations" material that "race realists" like the late Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Emil Kirkegaard have made so much of in recent years
https://substack.com/@stevesailer/p-148900443
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/so-youre-interested-in-the-national?utm_source=publication-search
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/
By doing multiple searches on my grownup computer (not to be confused with a cellphone) I learned that you're already familiar with Kirkegaard and his site OpenPsych. Kirkegaard is still around, apparently more well-funded than ever by his fixated cult sponsors.
By now, you're probably all too familiar with Brandolini's Law, aka "the bullshit asymmetry principle."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
If nothing else, Kirkegaard's claims should provide you with material for a great many more Substack posts,
Thanks. The Richard Lynn national IQ stuff has been pretty thoroughly debunked already. I can never think of much new to say about it.
I know. It’s exhausting. But that “research” continues to have a lot of resilience with the “race realists”, notably so here on Substack. I continue to see “national IQ” stats cited as authoritative, typically with no reference to specific studies or their origin. My take on that is “because Numbers.” Having no baseline connotation, numbers are unambiguous and objective, and hence are able to pose as Conclusive. Refuting the methodology can therefore be dismissed as “Woke apologism.” Granted, it doesn’t help that sloppy Woke apologism exists, and it have unfortunately received enough influence and media attention to inadvertently aid in efforts to discredit refutations of racist pseudoscience that are bedrock solid in their analysis.
That's pretty much it. Have a look yourself, it's open source.