posted on December 28, 2019 11:00 PM by
u/Epistaxis
52
u/Shitgenstein36 pointsat 1577577180.000000
But as the story of the Lithuanian rabbi suggests, Jewish genius
operates differently. It is prone to question the premise and rethink
the concept; to ask why (or why not?) as often as how; to see the absurd
in the mundane and the sublime in the absurd.
Nah, mate, that’s just you and your lack of imagination. Literally
just “thinking outside the box.”
These explanations for Jewish brilliance aren’t necessarily
definitive. Nor are they exclusive to the Jews.
“And therefore this article is a pointless waste of your time and
energy.”
Kinda blows a hole in the whole “scientists secretly believe in HBD
but can’t say so for fear of repercussions from the evil SJWs who
control academia and the MSM” talking point, doesn’t it?
Like, that’s always the defense I get when I ask why so few credited
domain experts endorse HBD. But this dreck is being printed in the NY
Times; shouldn’t it be causing massive cognitive dissonance for the
HBDers?
> I'm not qualified to assess the scholarship of the 2006 study that Bret Stephens cites. I'll merely note that a.) its title, "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence," rings alarm bells & b.) one of its co-authors, the late Henry Harpending, was a White Nationalist.
[Brian Ferguson is though.](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1eed/b19bcf7c059a4b10a9ed8c58027d9ed22bae.pdf)
Edit: Also, [lol](https://twitter.com/evopsychgoogle/status/1210905034378006528).
[context](https://www.vox.com/2019/8/27/20834957/bret-stephens-bedbug-meltdown-dave-karpf-new-york-times-explained)
[call for comment](https://twitter.com/karenkho/status/1210991097029316608)
They could hire any writer in the world and they keep employing the guy who forces them to clarify they don't support white supremacists. Huge brains operating in the NYT Opinion section these days.
What’s worse for me is that if their explanation is true, Stephens came up with a thesis first and then hurried to find some sort of scientific basis for it later. The fact that he accidentally used some white supremacist’s “research” indicates that he didn’t even read what he was citing. Even Wikipedia would get in trouble for that.
It should make you wonder what other screw ups he has made in the past while writing about less politically sensitive topics? If this is what counts for research and substantiating an argument (Googling and grabbing the first relevant sounding research paper you can find) then that is a level of sloppiness/incompetence that shouldn’t be welcomed by the paper of record.
(I realize that he is an editorialist and not a journalist, but the NYT should have some standards. He could have made the argument he did and then just admitted that he couldn’t source it to science.)
> What’s worse for me is that if their explanation is true, Stephens came up with a thesis first and then hurried to find some sort of scientific basis for it later. The fact that he accidentally used some white supremacist’s “research” indicates that he didn’t even read what he was citing. Even Wikipedia would get in trouble for that.
but also... his argument was racist at its core, which is why searching for support found... racism.
>It should make you wonder what other screw ups he has made in the past while writing about less politically sensitive topics? If this is what counts for research and substantiating an argument (Googling and grabbing the first relevant sounding research paper you can find) then that is a level of sloppiness/incompetence that shouldn’t be welcomed by the paper of record.
He's been caught doing it before! With the bedbug thing!
Nah, mate, that’s just you and your lack of imagination. Literally just “thinking outside the box.”
“And therefore this article is a pointless waste of your time and energy.”
Kinda blows a hole in the whole “scientists secretly believe in HBD but can’t say so for fear of repercussions from the evil SJWs who control academia and the MSM” talking point, doesn’t it?
Like, that’s always the defense I get when I ask why so few credited domain experts endorse HBD. But this dreck is being printed in the NY Times; shouldn’t it be causing massive cognitive dissonance for the HBDers?
Here a sneer, there a sneer, everywhere a sneer sneer
Frankly, I find the idea of a bedbug that thinks offensive.
Following in the footsteps of Jordan Peterson citing that Harpending and Cochran paper while claiming to be debunking anti-Semites.
Then we get this incoherent bit where he backpedals:
But Jews also “have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better.” Huh??
NYT: “Why are these wily Jews so clever?”
UPDATE: The Times has removed Stephens’s reference to Cochran et al. [2005] and spawned a hashtag.