[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


I’ve been exposed to way too much of this shit again lately on 4chan and I want to start a thread where we can start debunking common “race realist” talking points on things like intelligence, crime, athletic performance, or whatever.


I think you are looking for something like this.



Is this necrobumping?
I know there are a bunch of books one can read that debunk race science and come to the conclusion there's no biological or cultural inferiority, but I worry about being in a position to omit accurate text from undesirable authors (POC and Jewish people) to have a more effective argument against the rhetoric of racist pseudoscience. Why would a white nationalist or someone on the path to becoming one want to believe a black person who is trying to rehumanize themselves?


It‘s /edu/, we can‘t set such standards here that old threads can‘t be bumped.


have you read the book thats in your OP? its very good, if you havent read it that sounds like exactly what youre looking for




Did this guy change his views on race realism at some point? Most of his earlier articles when I search for specific topics seem to be pro-hereditarian. That would explain the name I guess.


Brandon Lee made a good video on The Bell Curve which I recommend and it is tangentially related.


This video is also good

<Reading the Right - Volume One: The Bell Curve


File: 1708572754656.pdf (1.78 MB, 67x118, s41380-021-01027-y.pdf)

Filerel has references in Box 1 that relate to your question, including one that critiques your image. Haier's The Neuroscience of Intelligence is recommended in it but I haven't gotten to reading it yet.


Haier is a staunch genetic determinist/hereditarian, he minces the racial element (for politically correct reasons), but isn't awfully far off from the likes of Murray etc.

A much better and more radical recommendation would be 'understanding intelligence' by Richardson.


I should add that Haeier is mostly dealing with the biases and vestiges of an older set of understandings surrounding psychometrics. For example, he still believes in Spearman's G (or G at all), still doesn't understand the limitations of heritability estimates or even the methodological implications thereof, still cites outdated work performance correlations as 'vindications' of construct validity, and most importantly, neither he nor any contemporary psychometricians have ever addressed the most difficult conceptual contentions, namely because they are more philosophical in essence, and psychometricians do not mesh well with critical thought. Nash' Measurement objection, the rule-following paradox, the practice effect paradox, SLODR, the original distribution of intelligence NOT being a bell-curve prior to its contrived re-norming, the very problematic implication present in the fact that, amongst homogenous populations, the less stratification is present, the more closely interlinked the correlation between crystal knowledge becomes with fluid knowledge, thereby problematizing the supposed foundational distinction, the fact that G significantly attenuates once testing 130+ SD takers, and on and on it goes.


Oh, and not to mention that rote activity has been shown to be robustly more cognitively taxing than actual formalized tests of intelligence, as per more direct neuroscientific research. Haeir is involved in neuroscience, but from a psychometric background. This is an important technical difference.


But I am a radical IQ denialist who also happens to believe that, as is heresy, the scale being 'measured' is actually ordinal rather than interval, so the implications here, far from denying human difference, reorient our understanding and render the supposed hierarchy non-linear.


he is a race realist in that he believes races are real, but he doesn't believe that there is a hierarchy of intelligence.


Sounds pretty interesting what you are talking about. Can you list some litersture I can get into to get a better understanding of the subject?


Paul sackett would be a good start.

Unique IPs: 13

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]