Rufo described Jonatan Pallesen as “a Danish data scientist who has raised new questions about Claudine Gay’s use – and potential misuse – of data in her PhD thesis” in an interview published in his newsletter and on the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal website last Friday.

He did not tell readers that a paper featuring Pallesen’s own statistical work in collaboration with the eugenicist researchers has been subject to scathing expert criticism for its faulty methods, and characterized as white nationalism by another academic critic.

The revelations once again raise questions about the willingness of Rufo – a major ally of Ron DeSantis and powerful culture warrior in Republican politics – to cultivate extremists in the course of his political crusades.

The Guardian emailed Rufo to ask about his repeated platforming of extremists, and asked both Rufo and the Manhattan Institute’s communications office whether they had vetted Pallesen before publishing the interview. Neither responded.

  • Eldritch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Groups don’t stop having different average IQs simply because they are defined as racial or ethnic,

    But race and ethnicity themselves are not determinative.

    intelligence is 85% heritable after all.

    Citation needed. Most citations I could find said genetics may account or anywhere from 30 to 50% of a person’s intelligence. But they have no idea what genes would possibly be contributing to that and how. So basically it’s a hypothesis with zero proof. Either you are operating on junk science or straight up eugenicist.

    While it is true that random groups of people may have different average IQs. It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc. Even then, IQ is not actually a useful measure of intelligence.

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I stand corrected! According to wikipedia:

      Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

      Thanks, I’ll edit my comments to reflect this. Intelligence remains heritable, just not as heritable as I thought.

      It has more to do with what they eat, how often they eat and their exposure to different ideas than it does their genetics, etc.

      One cannot discount the role of nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. Some twin studies are quite remarkable in illustrating the significant role it plays.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted. The twin studies are highly controversial for a number of reasons. But the results from them are not able to be generalized to the population at large in any way. And just to finish. Correlation is not causation. These studies pointed to interesting possibilities. Though That didn’t justify them still. But they ultimately prove nothing.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Eugenicist pushing junk science duly noted.

          Acknowledging heritability of IQ makes me neither of these things. There’s a lot of studies confirming this all cited at the wikipedia link above. Guess they’re all “junk science” because they don’t fit with your philosophy.

          Correlation is not causation.

          One likely cannot determine causation in this domain without some very unethical studies. How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

          • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            And again, IQ means little in the big scheme of things. It is not first among many differing attributes which are important to human beings’ survival, adaptation and growth.

            Please stop trying to argue it is.

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I agree and I never argued otherwise, in fact I shared a very similar argument in my first post:

              groups are adapted to different environments and on average each have different abilities because of these adaptations and none are objectively superior to another

              Please don’t project positions onto me that I do not hold. That’s called the straw man fallacy.

              • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.

                I wasn’t projecting … I was stating how the balance of your responses provided a context.

                • DarkGamer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  5 out of 7 of your posts on this thread mention IQ which indicates, at minimum, a correlation with how important you seems to think it is.

                  Did you read the article? That’s what it’s about.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            So. Where to start.

            It literally makes you one of those things bubbala.

            How many correlates does one need before they imply causation?

            All correlation can ever do is imply. Causation is not an implication. No amount of implications can prove causation. They are different things entirely.

            You are correlating heavily with eugenicists. You are using the language of eugenics. The measures of eugenics. And the reasoning of eugenics. Now while it’s true, I cannot say what’s in your heart. All your pro eugenics talk maybe performative and pure bluster. Which honestly isn’t any better. However, if this is sincerely not what you’re doing. And you don’t think you are or don’t want to be seen as someone pro eugenics. I suggest you change up where you’re getting your information from. I’m not going to tell you where to go. Just suggest that maybe what you’re doing now isn’t working for you.

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              10 months ago

              That’s probably because the article we’re discussing is about a eugenicist’s paper.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                I manage to discuss articles about criminal acts without endorsement. Must be all the Midi-chlorianians I have. Take it on faith that I do.

                • DarkGamer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Please cite where I endorsed criminal acts committed in this article. I’ll wait.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    I was listing an example. I pointed out that it is possible to discuss awful things without endorsement. You are discussing g IQism and it’s good buddy eugenics and are giving everyone the impression that you are fans of both. Which you pretty much have to be. Once you assume the spiritual belief in the holy G you have to assume that there are people with less Holy Spirit than others. Meaning humanity can be evaluated by 1 number and ranked accordingly. At some level there is a cutoff of who is unfit to live and who is fit to live. Since more G is always good it differs from all other rankings.

                    You can’t apply this to anything else. Being a better long distance runner means very little. You could still be in bad health you could still die at a young age. You could still be a jerk. However Holy Spirit G is always good. You take up as much space and use the same level of resources as someone with less Holy Spirit. A plus with no downsides since it measures all aspects of the human mind. Belief in IQ and you are going to believe that humanity should get rid of those with less IQ.

                    As I told you before, it doesn’t act like anything else in existence. You aren’t a better human because you have a higher temperature, or eat more calories, or have darker skin. Which should set off massive alarm bells, because right now you are pleading for special treatment. A well known logical fallacy.