Thomas Sowell addressed this and made the point "two brothers can be brought up , same parents, same love, same social circle, same environment, same country, same laws, same finacial input, same school etc etc but STILL grow up and make widely different choices and outcomes of their lives"
There appear to be significant differences between the IQ means of various racial groups indicating Ashkenazi Jews & East Asians at the top, Europeans in the middle and blacks at the bottom.
However whilst it is clear IQ is measuring something, arguably it's not all that clear what it is measuring. For example Europeans 100 years ago would have scored an average IQ of 70 on today's tests which falls into the 'mentally disabled' category and well below the acceptable minimum to join the US Army.
Clearly my great grandad and everyone he knew were not morons and the continual re-calibration of IQ tests has been described by the Flynn effect.
What does this mean for the racially different means recorded for IQ tests?
What can be learnt from the reaction to your role in the Arday affair about the rising crisis of antisemitism building in academia and the double standards prevalent towards Jews compared to other minorities?
Exposing frauds, replication and other tools are self-correction mechanisms in academia, but they seem to have been abandoned/vilified in recent times, in favour of ideology. How does academia get out of this shithole, if those tools are made unavailable and knowledge produced without self-correction is used to justify abandoning self-correction?
I saw him on the Winston Marshall show. My mind was blown how far academia has fallen away from critical thinking and debate. It is probably why the West is in a mess. Meritocracy has been run over by factions and that is very dangerous in academia and in all walks of life. I am not sure I have a question other than how do we fix this (in academia), hoping that we are not too far gone down the rabbit hole.
When people are exposed for serious fraud or deception, do they sometimes characterise the resulting scrutiny in the same way as Arday, as a smear campaign, a personal vendetta, an orchestrated attempt to destroy them, or cruel and unfair persecution, rather than as a consequence of the evidence against them? Is this common?
If conventional academic publication can suppress controversial claims, then independent publication provides an important route around that gatekeeping. I also recognise that peer review is far from a perfect safeguard as poor-quality and plagiarised work clearly gets published, and the replication crisis raises serious questions about the reliability of academic research. But, if independent publication removes even that imperfect layer of scrutiny, what should replace it? How do we preserve the freedom to publish truthful, relevant and controversial information in the public interest without creating even greater scope for misinformation, poor scholarship and plagiarism?
Do you think the underlying problem is one of errors, bias or lies?
i.e. Accuracy vs precision.
Errors are morally acceptable and hopefully correctable.
Bias and lies requires punishment.
To me the problem with academia is one of bias and lies. not errors / mistakes. There is high precision, in that outcomes are predictable based on knowing the bias of the people within the academy, but they are clearly not aligned with truth.
In one of your essays you ask a question about 'moral worth' of a person - worth is dependent on the context, but you conclude that intelligence should be part of the moral worth.
Moral worth is however used in the context of 'I don't think lower IQ(or your slow 100m sprint time) should mean you are less worthy person', the context being iq should not be not relevant to equal rights but also to the way we treat each other (or should it?) Can you elaborate and maybe suggest a better way to communicate this idea?
Apart from the political expediency of it, does Mr. Cofnas see any validity at all in the stated grounds for his suspension given by the university of Ghent?
For someone wishing to familiarise themselves with his work, where does he suggest they start? Which papers or publications are most accessible (in both senses of the word)?
What evidence would convince you that average group differences in cognitive ability are entirely environmental rather than partly genetic?
Thomas Sowell addressed this and made the point "two brothers can be brought up , same parents, same love, same social circle, same environment, same country, same laws, same finacial input, same school etc etc but STILL grow up and make widely different choices and outcomes of their lives"
There appear to be significant differences between the IQ means of various racial groups indicating Ashkenazi Jews & East Asians at the top, Europeans in the middle and blacks at the bottom.
However whilst it is clear IQ is measuring something, arguably it's not all that clear what it is measuring. For example Europeans 100 years ago would have scored an average IQ of 70 on today's tests which falls into the 'mentally disabled' category and well below the acceptable minimum to join the US Army.
Clearly my great grandad and everyone he knew were not morons and the continual re-calibration of IQ tests has been described by the Flynn effect.
What does this mean for the racially different means recorded for IQ tests?
What can be learnt from the reaction to your role in the Arday affair about the rising crisis of antisemitism building in academia and the double standards prevalent towards Jews compared to other minorities?
Exposing frauds, replication and other tools are self-correction mechanisms in academia, but they seem to have been abandoned/vilified in recent times, in favour of ideology. How does academia get out of this shithole, if those tools are made unavailable and knowledge produced without self-correction is used to justify abandoning self-correction?
I saw him on the Winston Marshall show. My mind was blown how far academia has fallen away from critical thinking and debate. It is probably why the West is in a mess. Meritocracy has been run over by factions and that is very dangerous in academia and in all walks of life. I am not sure I have a question other than how do we fix this (in academia), hoping that we are not too far gone down the rabbit hole.
When people are exposed for serious fraud or deception, do they sometimes characterise the resulting scrutiny in the same way as Arday, as a smear campaign, a personal vendetta, an orchestrated attempt to destroy them, or cruel and unfair persecution, rather than as a consequence of the evidence against them? Is this common?
Can academia regain the trust?
Does he think his autism hinders his communication style to his own detriment, and does he care?
If conventional academic publication can suppress controversial claims, then independent publication provides an important route around that gatekeeping. I also recognise that peer review is far from a perfect safeguard as poor-quality and plagiarised work clearly gets published, and the replication crisis raises serious questions about the reliability of academic research. But, if independent publication removes even that imperfect layer of scrutiny, what should replace it? How do we preserve the freedom to publish truthful, relevant and controversial information in the public interest without creating even greater scope for misinformation, poor scholarship and plagiarism?
Do you think the underlying problem is one of errors, bias or lies?
i.e. Accuracy vs precision.
Errors are morally acceptable and hopefully correctable.
Bias and lies requires punishment.
To me the problem with academia is one of bias and lies. not errors / mistakes. There is high precision, in that outcomes are predictable based on knowing the bias of the people within the academy, but they are clearly not aligned with truth.
In one of your essays you ask a question about 'moral worth' of a person - worth is dependent on the context, but you conclude that intelligence should be part of the moral worth.
Moral worth is however used in the context of 'I don't think lower IQ(or your slow 100m sprint time) should mean you are less worthy person', the context being iq should not be not relevant to equal rights but also to the way we treat each other (or should it?) Can you elaborate and maybe suggest a better way to communicate this idea?
Has Mr Cofnas considered moving to the United States?
Apart from the political expediency of it, does Mr. Cofnas see any validity at all in the stated grounds for his suspension given by the university of Ghent?
For someone wishing to familiarise themselves with his work, where does he suggest they start? Which papers or publications are most accessible (in both senses of the word)?