Asking about IQ as an opener certainly separates the wheat from from
the chaff, if by wheat you mean “this idiot” and by chaff you mean “any
chance at a sexual encounter”
There was somebody who actually did a 'what is your most controversial opinion' question as dating test (which I assume primalpoly is subtweeting here).
And somebody said something like 'IQ is genetically determined' and she replied with something like 'what, by only the genes of the father, or like both parents' (showing imho she has a sign of humor) and he replied with 'no I meant racially'. (E: lot of IQ bros thought she was the bad person in this interaction btw, I had no idea dating was so bad atm, guess im a catch). E: found the tweet for yall: https://twitter.com/ZAPPAPOSTING/status/1450468207379234826
>she replied with something like 'what, by only the genes of the father, or like both parents' (showing imho she has a sign of humor) and he replied with 'no I meant racially'
"That's not a very grounded opinion. There's no scientific pr..."
"No, don't fuss with the details, what I'm getting at here is that I'm a racist."
Evopsychgoogle is great, it exposes a lot of the weird evopsych research in a snarky tone. And just [general subtweets](https://twitter.com/evopsychgoogle/status/1450211585297846274)
Sometimes I wish I had such a lack of respect for intellectual rigour that I could just make up a bar graph and pretend it proved whatever point I wanted it to.
I think it was u/Epistaxis who posted that New Yorker piece
(that I thought was terrible) “Can Progressives be Convinced that
Genetics Matter?” to r/genetics for discussion (it also seemed like they
were one of two actual genetics researchers pushing back on some of the
piece’s takeaways and arguing with idiots trying to stump them).
Part of the piece’s thesis is that “the left” needs to have difficult
conversations around iq variance/heritability, otherwise contrarians
like Miller and Khan will monopolize the field and push it into the
mainstream.
I thought that idea was fucking absurd, and evidence of the author’s
own Twitter brain - that the average Trumper (guess I’d bet that Stephen
Miller is an exception) has no fucking idea who these people are, and
would just squint at you if asked about the hbd “debate.” And that the
idea is more because: “leftists in academia are hindering progress with
their ideological rigidity” is a popular topic in American liberal
media, which is the pov that actually plays into these peoples’, who
know that invoking a leftist conspiracy against them is the best
evidence they can ever offer for their followers, hands.
Is that where this sub is at: that these people are purely fucking
ridiculous, or do they have some sway outside their Twitter
sycophants?
Absolutely correct regarding "Trumpers." Trump following and everyday conservatism, etc. are not informed by some belief about scientific data about iq. the conversations in question has always been essentially inter classical-liberalism / centre liberalism. The heredibility questions offers a comfort to any uneasiness of inequality. What is essentially being asked is for there to be a more progressive genetics public intellectual for these magazines / twitter brained issues. It's like thinking the response to the niche popularity of the book "Liberal Fascism" is a progressive Jonah Goldberg.
The iq stuff, *might* figure into actually policy / politics, as I've heard arguably "the Bell Curve" debates did. but its not like a disregard of poverty was caused by "the Bell Curve".
I don't think it makes sense to talk about "this sub" as an entity that has a consensus opinion about much of anything tbh
that said, I was not remotely surprised to see Freddie deBoer's name come up in that article
They exclusively have sway over Twitter sycophants. Increasingly, that includes many liberal media figures who can't step over their own neoliberal ideology, as history blows past them like a freight train, while neoliberalism is being rapidly replaced by other ideologies.
Toss that trash in the same bin as the “6’+ only” club or the “check
out this chick I banged last night bro” club. Fake, shallow,
narcissistic, hollow, probably terrible in bed, etc.
And if you’re curious. One of the qualities that makes people “great”
in bed, is empathy. Which those groups don’t usually have in
abundance.
Asking about IQ as an opener certainly separates the wheat from from the chaff, if by wheat you mean “this idiot” and by chaff you mean “any chance at a sexual encounter”
The white sex wizard: If you want to get with me, you have to answer these IQ questions three.
E: https://twitter.com/evopsychgoogle/status/1446648179215069192 lol
Surprised he can’t just analyse their skulls from photos tbh
Thanks Geoff but I prefer “How much phlogiston in a cord of firewood?”
If you wannabe my lover, you gotta get with phren-ology
I think it was u/Epistaxis who posted that New Yorker piece (that I thought was terrible) “Can Progressives be Convinced that Genetics Matter?” to r/genetics for discussion (it also seemed like they were one of two actual genetics researchers pushing back on some of the piece’s takeaways and arguing with idiots trying to stump them).
Part of the piece’s thesis is that “the left” needs to have difficult conversations around iq variance/heritability, otherwise contrarians like Miller and Khan will monopolize the field and push it into the mainstream.
I thought that idea was fucking absurd, and evidence of the author’s own Twitter brain - that the average Trumper (guess I’d bet that Stephen Miller is an exception) has no fucking idea who these people are, and would just squint at you if asked about the hbd “debate.” And that the idea is more because: “leftists in academia are hindering progress with their ideological rigidity” is a popular topic in American liberal media, which is the pov that actually plays into these peoples’, who know that invoking a leftist conspiracy against them is the best evidence they can ever offer for their followers, hands.
Is that where this sub is at: that these people are purely fucking ridiculous, or do they have some sway outside their Twitter sycophants?
Toss that trash in the same bin as the “6’+ only” club or the “check out this chick I banged last night bro” club. Fake, shallow, narcissistic, hollow, probably terrible in bed, etc.
And if you’re curious. One of the qualities that makes people “great” in bed, is empathy. Which those groups don’t usually have in abundance.
It should be a Facebook group, “Unlike you lefties, I am not obsessed by politics and I don’t make my life around it”
…which would explain why he’s got a profile on pretentioussingles.com
If I was asked this, my response would be “mostly matrilineal innit”
“What’s one question you wish everyone would answer in their profile” is a bizarrely cogent statement in an otherwise fucking berserk post.
Like, divorced from any and all context, it on its own isn’t bad advice for writing a profile.
It separates the wheat from the chaff, but not in the way you’re thinking, Geoffrey.
He’s right, that question does kind of separate the wheat from the chaff.
All I’ve got to say about this is “return to the median.”
I’m sorry, what is the issue here?
lol lots of people in the comments are very uncomfortable with genetics