Listen, your clinical psychiatrist should be able to post anonymously on the internet without it affecting his business. Free speech is important.

…

Ok, listen, your clinical psychiatrist should be able to develop a pseudonym on the internet and develop a massive following, as long as you can’t google his real name and connect it to the blog one. Free speech is important.

…

Ok, ok, listen, listen, your clinical psychiatrist should be able post about race science under his own name while yelling “it doesn’t count” seven years later when the consequences could impact his business and and free speech and and ….

[looking forward to the next position of the goal post]

[deleted]

Whoa. This was seriously my psychiatrist. He was very monotone but a nice dude and helped me out

Asking a person clearly heavily on one side of the issue to point him toward “unbiased sources”… i think there’s a word for that but it’s slipping my mind… something to do with being less incorrect?

The hits keep coming and they dont stop coming

Has Scott said anything at all about the massive amount of damaging information that’s bubbled up recently, or is he just sitting back and listening to “You’re the Devil in Disguise” while his reputation outside his diehard fans goes to shit?

I mean, it’s not-at-all strange that he didn’t want to bring his real name into the mix when this would obviously trigger a movement to bring up all admonishable things he has said in the past.

I’ve never been a fan of science on intelligence, and I see people talking about the topic as a big, red flag that they are probably terrible people. If you are a member of Mensa, you are likely to be unpleasant and racist/sexist. Because having ‘intelligence’ as part of your identity means you are insecure at your very core. I recommend Jamie Loftus’ podcast My Year in Mensa for an introduction to its … interesting culture.

That said, I think it’s a very bad idea to let right-wingers enjoy a near-monopoly on the topic. Left-wingers have the advantage that they take science seriously and that they are (usually) more willing to explore the ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding various topics rather than latch on to a black-and-white interpretation of things. For instance: you can’t separate nature and nurture. It’s inherently murky. The MAOA-L genotype (dubbed “the warrior gene”) has been associated with violent behavior in certain contexts. Right-wingers jumped on this to paint Māoris as inherently violent because a study with a small sample size found that this gene was expressed at a higher-than-average level. We need left-wingers who are willing to explain why this is bad science and morally abhorrent, and that can only happen if they are comfortable discussing these sensitive issues.

There’s also the ridiculously shoddy science behind evolutionary psychology. Something like 90% of their studies are literally just surveys handed out to psychology students. It’s basically trash. But reactionaries tend to eat it up.

Lately, I’ve been thinking that what the Rationalist movement really needs is a good injection of anthropology. Anthropologists tend to be really good at delving deep into topics and exploring them from every angle. And they have thought long and hard about this exact issue. Their insights could potentially act as an antidote for wishywashy neo-eugenicism.

This looks like a smear job to me, esp as he clearly was already aware that he should keep this stuff on the down low and use pseudonyms.

Did he link this article on his blog? (As in the article under which the comment was posted).

But yes, his name always was an open secret, but i still think people should be allowed to become a little bit more anonymous, esp to protect patients, and if they have done nothing wrong (latter has become a bit dubious to say it lightly). But yes he always was a little bit hypocritcal (e: but he was at the time open about the fact that his name was out there, his description of the history of how easy it was to find just shifts a little bit in the retellings) and dodgy about the real name thing. But that is imho not the worst thing about him (and dont think we should focus on that as he/his fans will just spin it to be about the dox over and over again, and not the community doing a 180 on his stance on neofacism, and the obsession with people obsessed with power)

There is also the risk that reddit admins will see this as doxing and rm -rf the subreddit. That is iirc one of the reasons we didnt talk about this before.

E: imagine being doxxed because you stan prediction markets as a way to determine truth over democratic values. (Prediction markets are a bit flawed because it excludes the poor)

I mean, there’s two options here:

• He spent several years hiding his power level about scientific racism by not mentioning the extent to which he supports it even on his pseudonymous blog, then went and used his real name to post angry racist comments

• Someone tried to smear him because they were mad at him

One of these seems more likely than the other!