/lit/ - Literature

"The Mismeasure of Man"

>>7432232
>In a review of The Mismeasure of Man, Bernard Davis, professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, said that Gould erected a straw man argument based upon incorrectly defined key terms — specifically reification — which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of statistical data, all motivated more by politics than by science. That Philip Morrison’s laudatory book review of The Mismeasure of Man in Scientific American, was written and published because the editors of the journal had "long seen the study of the genetics of intelligence as a threat to social justice." Davis also criticized the popular-press and the literary-journal book reviews of The Mismeasure of Man as generally approbatory; whereas, most scientific-journal book reviews were generally critical.

>>7432223
The actual papers it cites are better if you're scientificall literate, I suppose.

>>7432232
>neo-lysenkoist hack job
>red-pill
Lel, I wrote two papers in college ripping Gould apart. Got As on them despite the professor's progressive beliefs because the book is THAT transparently political and bad-faith. I mean, there are chapters devoted to mocking phrenology as if that has something to do with anything done since 1950. There are chapters that debunk studies from 70 years prior when much better work was available on the same things. I love Gould's books on evolution, but he ruined his own name to those in the know with Mismeasure.

>>7432223
Yeah try a book that isn't 20 years outdated

>>7432318
>black people got smarter in the last 20 years
Glad I wasn't around to see what it was like before then. Yikes.

>>7432320
kek

>>7432223

Any book that doesn't rely on cherry picking poorly sampled studies that support its own point.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/sciam1.htm

They adopt data from studies that were not measuring IQ and so did not control for any factors that would affect measurement of IQ and attempt to twist it into a measurement of IQ.

Another is based off a study that just tested copper miners with a normal test (An obviously highly biased sample) and then assigning an IQ based on the test results with no other controls or investigation.

Lynn, the man responsible for the original work which was published by the University of Ulster, was also heavily funded by this organization and now appears to be a senior member:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

Please note that merely choosing to investigate this or accept funding would not disqualify his objectivity, but his clearly extremely close ties with this agenda draw into serious question the objectivity of his research.

It was pretty heavily demolished for the methodology at the time and ever since.

>>7432223
Going to a large public middle or high school in the south will make you racist af in a hurry, if that's what you mean.

>>7432401
reading that Wiki article seems to suggests that the chief objections to the Pioneer Fund come down to "I don't like their results"
the central claim (that intelligence is genetic) has never been rebuked and never will

>>7432223

Can't you diseased sonsabitches stay in your containment board?

>>>>/pol/

Shoo.

>>7432518

You're correct in that it will never be rebuked 100% because measuring IQ and intelligence is too complex and subjective, it strays heavily into social science fields and all the subjectivity and impossible to control for factors that implies.

The best guess at the moment does suggest a strong genetic element to IQ, but there's little basis for strong racial variation in this.

However my point in linking that group was more that his membership of the fund does say something, both about the potential political leanings of the group and their position in the political spectrum and the potential for this to impact on interpretation of results and also that it highlights the fairly strong financial and personal ties. The book revolves very heavily around research funded by this single body and a very small circle of researchers - there's a lack of variety in the sources.

>Sociology
>Redpilled
In the same way that feminism and African American studies are redpilled, sure.

>>7432223
Probably not. The thing is, even if we accept for the sake of argument that average intelligence varies significantly across different and clearly identifiable racial groups, it's still a hell of a leap from that to Hitler Did Nothing Wrong.

No one dismissing it has read it.

And there's something terribly sad and banal about that.

>>7433009
David pls

>>7433016
Not him. Who's David?

>>7433006
The problem is that there's two camps. There's the crowd you mentioned, i.e the Neo-Nazi retards, and then there's the white liberal professor who thinks it's just racist to even study something like that.

Meanwhile, normal people can have a serious discussion about the topic of the book without being prejudiced either way.

>>7432976
Hello reddit

>>7433020
> there's something terribly sad and banal about that.

>>7433020
I hope you meet the same fate as David.

>>7433028
Oh. I thought you were referring to the first part of his post.

>"Objective" measures of intelligence

Read some Foucault you fucking disgusting garbage pig-whore pleb

>>7433031
>Read some Foucault
LOL
O
L

>>7433031
Hahahahahahabahahahahabahaba—Humanities! The Grand De-Fanger of human minds!

Hahahahahahahaha ayylmao fuckface.

>>7433044
Sociology is crap too.

>>7433031
>Read some Foucault

kek

>>7433029
He could never escape his own Pynchon Prison

>>7433047
The Bell Curve isn't sociology... Hahahahahahahaha guys! Come ON!

>>7433031
>we're all smart in our own special way
>school didn't get me
>IQ? psshhhh

>>7433022
>white liberal professor
why does he have to be white?

You were tricked into thinking the book is racist.

1/2

2/2

Way to be freethinkers, you parrots.

>>7433044
that first edition even paperback is like $200

>>7433106
Spooky.

>>7433095
>>7433102
hard not to when all the controversy surrounds the small section on race
both the left and right hijacked it

>>7433122
Left and right what?

>>7432232
The hilarious thing about Gould is that he actually faked his data in mismeasure of man. He did the exact same thing he (erroneously) accused 19th century racialists of doing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0

>>7432401
>They adopt data from studies that were not measuring IQ
What are you talking about?

Most of the book uses data from the NLSY which explicitly administered IQ tests.

>Another is based off a study that just tested copper miners with a normal test (An obviously highly biased sample) and then assigning an IQ based on the test results with no other controls or investigation.
I have no recollection whatsoever of what you're talking about. Even if such a study was used at some point in the book, the vast majority of the book uses official governmental studies which explicitly measured IQ, usually tests administered in the army or studies such as the NLSY.

>It was pretty heavily demolished for the methodology at the time
Actually it wasn't.

mark my words biological determinism will play a huge part in the future of the right and the implications will go far beyond race

>>7433144
Mark my words: eugenics programs will eliminate most of the Right's supporters.

>>7432980
>You're correct in that it will never be rebuked 100% because measuring IQ and intelligence is too complex and subjective
It's complex, but it's not subjective. IQ tests are now designed scientifically and tested to be highly g-loaded. It's not like a bunch of old guys gather up in a room and invent test questions out of the blue.

The "it's impossible to control every factor" argument is a shitty copout. Obviously, IQ tests are imperfect, but that doesn't mean that what they measure is inaccurate.

>but there's little basis for strong racial variation in this.
Show me a single instance in the past 100 years where blacks have outscored whites on a cognitive test.

>>7433031
Please go back to /his/ with your pseudo-science.

>>7433146
that's a /mu/ tier comment
do better

>mfw eugenics is nothing more than a metaphor

>Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different central metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family. Conservatives would subscribe more strongly and more often to a model that he calls the "strict father model" and has a family structured around a strong, dominant "father" (government), and assumes that the "children" (citizens) need to be disciplined to be made into responsible "adults" (morality, self-financing). Once the "children" are "adults", though, the "father" should not interfere with their lives: the government should stay out of the business of those in society who have proved their responsibility. In contrast, Lakoff argues that liberals place more support in a model of the family, which he calls the "nurturant parent model", based on "nurturant values", where both "mothers" and "fathers" work to keep the essentially good "children" away from "corrupting influences" (pollution, social injustice, poverty, etc.). Lakoff says that most people have a blend of both metaphors applied at different times, and that political speech works primarily by invoking these metaphors and urging the subscription of one over the other.

>>7433157
The quote you posted has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics.

>>7433146
topkek

>>7433146
Most blacks vote democrat though.

>>7433144
The Left asked for it too, with its stringent denial of human nature

>>7433144
It's gonna be glorious.

The pendulum will swing hard in the opposite direction.

>>7433151
>a test created by humans to measure the intelligence of humans
>not completely subjective

>>7433215
>>not completely subjective
It's impolite to talk about things you quite clearly know nothing about.

I suggest you read this article, to understand how intelligence is defined, and how intelligence tests are constructed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>>7433208
Thanks Martini Steve...

The pendulum is swinging back towards right wing being hip. The way you feel about them now will be the way you'll feel about liberals in a few years. Pathetic trend followers...

These popscifags first shit up /sci/ and now they want to take over this board? Fucking retards.

I wish hiro would do another /pol/ harbor today.

>>7433227
I'm not talking about bloggers, I'm talking about mainstream opinions.

The change will be equal in scope to the 1960s, only in the opposite direction.

>>7433225
>>a test created by humans to measure the intelligence of humans
>>not completely subjective

>>7433232
What exactly is popsci about psychometrics?

>>7433225
>psychometrics
Bro... You made me shed laugh hate sadness tears... So thanks. But, you... You are... Oh my god where did you come from! Who showed you that and said 'this will show them'? Fucking 19th Century psych nonsense.

also

the 10,000 year explosion

>>7433236
They're subjective in the same sense that Newton's laws are subjective, yes.

I know it probably goes beyond your cognitive abilities but could you please make an effort and read the article I linked to you?

>>7433240
Modern leftist are pathetic, aren't they? Part of me hopes they aren't actually this stupid and just delude themselves because recognizing the reality of racial differences would make them go mad from the revelation.

>>7433238
>this is an example of anti-racist argumentation
I think it speaks for itself.

>Fucking 19th Century psych nonsense.
Psychometrics mostly developed post ww2.

>>7433240
>Giving a single fuck about Newton's laws
>Not using Lagrangian mechanics
Wow /lit/ really is full of underage retards

For those of you who actually care about neurosci and intelligence unlike of these /pol/eb popscifags who want to shit up every board that I like:
>Kandel Principles of Neuroscience

>>7433239
>Pinker misquotes and misunderstands Virginia Woolf as saying "In or about December 1910, human nature changed," (Pinker's response was "Woolf was wrong. Human nature did not change in 1910, or in any year thereafter.”) Woolf actually wrote "On or about December 1910 human character changed," and she was writing about fiction, critiquing Literary realism compared to the modernist movement.
Top pleb.

>>7433244
And it is universally accepted as valid by the people that actually work in these fields. Everyone recognizes that IQ is a legitimate way to measure cognitive ability, the dissenters just deny that racial IQ gaps are primarily caused by genetic factors.

>>7433243
I think it's just ignorance, really. They've been forcefed anti-racist falsehoods their whole lives and have developed a pavlovian response to what they perceive as "racist", which makes them react in an instinctive, unintelligent manner (like flat out denial, throwing insults, etc.)

>>7433244
>Waaahhh why won't people take psychometry seriously
The same reason why no one wants to read your paper on MOND or patent your perpetual motion machine

>>7433247
>t. physics undergrad
You're not impressing anyone with the name-dropping.

>>7433252
This is the worst thing about this whole field. The discrepancy between what is accepted by academia and what is accepted by the general public. It would be as if the general public thought the earth was flat and that the earth being spherical was only accepted within the community of astronomers.

It makes me all the more cringe when fucking idiots say things such as "well experts in the field actually dismiss IQ". NO THEY FUCKING DON'T

>>7433251
He used her quote to make a point about the false belief in the malleability of man. Whether or not Woolf actually said that is irrelevant to his central thesis.

>>7433254
>>Waaahhh why won't people take psychometry seriously
psychometrics*

>The same reason why no one wants to read your paper on MOND or patent your perpetual motion machine
What??

Honestly, is this the best arguments you can come up with? Petty insults?

You really are confirming the stereotypes that lefturds such as yourself are immature children with below average intelligence.

>>7433247
What do you expect from /pol/? They're a bunch of retards.

>>7433249
I meant Neural Science not Neuroscience.

>>7433151
> solving inane little logic puzzles is the same as intelligence
IQ should be reabbreviated from intelligence quotient to IQ quotient out of honesty

>>7433260
>Learning calculus of variations in college and not high school
>Being so dumb you can even conceive of someone mentioning someone as well known as Lagrange with the intent of impressing anyone
Just wow

>>7433266
> solving inane little logic puzzles is the same as intelligence
Yes.

Read up on g, what "g-loaded" means and how IQ tests are constructed.

But who am I kidding, you're too intellectually dishonest to make the effort.

>>7433266
Don't humor these fucks. They don't care about neuroscience, they don't care about literature, they don't care about research. They just want to take whatever they can to stuff down their stupid ideology.

Just ignore and sage this idiotic thread. Don't make the same mistake as /sci/ and interact with these idiots because they're obstinate fucks

>>7433264
Not everything deserves be be argued against. That's my point you idiot. Also stop saying shit like lefturd. You sound like the conservative equivalent of a liberal high school girl during the second Bush administration. Grow up.

>>7433262
>he just used a (incorrect) quote as an example of people claiming something that the quote didn't claim!
>misquoting is an acceptable thing for a scientist to do
>people who misunderstand woolf deserve respect on /lit/

>>7433269
I don't know where you grew up, but Lagrangian mechanics weren't thought in high school where I grew up. I'm pretty sure they weren't thought in your high school either, you're just trying to "le epic troll" me.

I'd appreciate it if instead of behaving like an underage retard and derailing this thread with your moronic comments you'd stick to the subject at hand.

>>7433276
>Don't humor these fucks. They don't care about neuroscience, they don't care about literature, they don't care about research. They just want to take whatever they can to stuff down their stupid ideology.
This is hilarious considering what you're doing right now is disregard the entire literature and research of psychometrics...

>>7433279
>Not everything deserves be be argued against. That's my point you idiot.
And that's a very dangerous point. I bet you'd prefer if certain subjects were banned?

You're the modern day equivalent of the inquisitor.

>Also stop saying shit like lefturd
I can't help it that you espouse leftist ideology in addition to having lower intellectual capabilities than fresh excrement.

>>7433276
Yeah, kill any discussion. Where did you crawl out of?

Ignoring things is worse than discussing them, Xi Jingping. What is wrong with you?

>>7433281
You can criticize him for misrepresenting Woolf, but that shouldn't color your views of the book's central thesis. That's my point. It's a single sentence in a 500 page book.

I find it funny that /lit/ allows Zizek to get away with the worst forms of plagiarism, but once someone they disagree with makes a mistake it's used as fodder for their attacks.

>>7433302
>>people who misunderstand woolf deserve respect on /lit/

>Zizek
Is a meme.

>>7433302
This is how most forms of scientific denialism work, you encounter the same thing when dealing with climate change deniers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWIiJMQgAk

>>7433315
>>people who misunderstand woolf deserve respect on /lit/

>>7433307
>>>people who misunderstand woolf deserve respect on /lit/
Yes. Smart people say dumb shit all the time. If a writer is around for long enough, he'll eventually say something embarrassing. It's true even of the modern greats, like Nabokov and T.S. Eliot.

>>7433320
>Nabokov
Give me one example.

>>7433319
Pinker's book isn't about Woolf, that's a throwaway line in a book that his hundreds of pages long. His book is about the way that moderns tend to discount the role that genetics plays in our behavior.

/pol/ memes aside, it is a pretty mindblowing proposition if you've been fed egalitarianism your whole life

>>7433334
>being a pleb is acceptable ever
>getting quotes right is a diffucult thing that you can't expect scientists to do

>>7433324
His statements on great authors like Conrad and Dostoevsky. His anti-music rants. Also,

>"I dislike Jane [Austen], and am prejudiced, in fact against all women writers. They are in another class."

>>7433337
>>7433334
It wasn't in quotes. He was conveying her point. Human character didn't change. You're not this stupid.

>>7433333

this book

>>7433341
>His statements on great authors like Conrad and Dostoevsky.
Butthurt fanboy detected.

>the austen quote
So he admitted his prejudice instead of rationalizing it. Where's the dumb part

>>7433344
>He was conveying her point.
Incorrectly.

>>7433359
>arguing with stormniggers
eventually they're just going to say since woolf is female she's shit anyway. don't bother with plebs. they're too dumb to be considered

>>7433359
>So he admitted his prejudice instead of rationalizing it. Where's the dumb part
The prejudice itself is ridiculous.

>>7433363
>they're just going to say since woolf is female she's shit anyway
He says to the guy defending Nabokov's sexism

>>7433374
>defending Nabokov's sexism
I wasn't.

>>7433374
>sexism
Someone's bluepilled as fuck. Women have a lower average IQ and fewer geniuses which explains why Nabokov doesn't like them. It's not sexism. It's science.

>>7433151
>Please go back to /his/
Yes, this thread is totally literature. Don't post off-topic bullshit, guys.

>>7433383
women don't have lower IQ's

>>7433380
You're minimizing it at the very least. My point isn't to attack Nabokov, whom I like, but to demonstrate that even the greats aren't infallible. You shouldn't allow a single mistake to ruin someone's life work.

>>7433387
>Women have a lower average IQ
It's slightly lower but men still have more geniuses which is why all the best authors, inventors, etc are men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

>>7433390
>admitting one of your weaknesses in a letter is the same as misquoting and misconveying someone in a book about science

>>7433270
>correlates to college scores, job performance and income
wow true intelligence here

>>7433393
>all the best authors, inventors, etc are men
Citation needed.

>>7433393
I haven't studied this at all, but I did once read that women are concetrated towards the center of the IQ scale, while men are more likely to be either idiots or geniuses.

>>7433359
>Incorrectly.
You can't elaborate because...?

>>7433403
Because my original quote already did so.

>>7433387
You're right that the mean average male and female IQs are essentially the same, but the female distribution is more tightly clustered around the mean, meaning there are fewer females with very high IQs (and more males with very low ones, but the low end wasn't doing anything notable anyway).

>>7433397
The former is worse. Nabokov was admitting a blanket prejudice that applied to half of the human race, while Pinker's central thesis was completely unaffected by his misquotation.

>>7433407
Hahahahahahaha no... It didn't...

He paraphrase/rewords her sentence. In context. Says it's wrong. You disagree with his point, ok, but you have backed it up with nothing except pretending he is misrepresenting Woolfie.

So, you're wrong on your only point.

>>7433421
>Adele
HNNGGGGGGG

>>7433411
Not being affected by society's prejudices: quite hard.

Not misquoting people: pretty fucking easy.

>>7433426
It's stilllll not a misquote since it's not a quote!

>>7433421
>adherent of scientism completely misunderstands literature
>acceptable on /lit/

>>7433430
Is it time to shitpost this thread into oblivion?

Where's that one bot?

>>7433430 said that French people eat poo for breakfast. It's not a misquote because I didn't use quotation marks!

>>7433426
Nabokov wasn't just admitting to a prejudice that he was trying to counteract, he's wrote negatively about female writers for years.

>"You have so many writing women! Be careful—it’s a sign of a provincial literature"

He was sexist, through and through

>>7433009

I haven't read it because I'm aware of the large level of criticism around it from other scientific sources and if I'm going to spend a lot of time reading a science book I want to be sure that it's credible and properly sourced.

>>7433457
>He was sexist, through and through
Fair enough. Being sexist and being a pleb are orthogonal tho.

>>7433460
So you don't read anything with mixed reviews?

>>7433460
>large level of criticism around it from other scientific sources
there really isn't though
at this point you don't need to read it tbqh, you know what the central claims are and you know people have tried to censor it which tells you how valid its results are

>>7433470
>people have tried to censor it which tells you how valid its results are
By this logic Mein Kampf would be accurate.

>>7433359
>Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:49:00 No.7433363▶>>7433374
>>>7433359
>>arguing with stormniggers
>eventually they're just going to say since woolf is female she's shit anyway. don't bother with plebs. they're too dumb to be considered
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:52:04 No.7433374▶>>7433380 >>7433383
>>>7433359
>>So he admitted his prejudice instead of rationalizing it. Where's the dumb part
>The prejudice itself is ridiculous.
>>>7433363
>>they're just going to say since woolf is female she's shit anyway
>He says to the guy defending Nabokov's sexism
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:54:12 No.7433380▶>>7433390
>>>7433374
>>defending Nabokov's sexism
>I wasn't.
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:54:45 No.7433383▶>>7433387
>>>7433374
>>sexism
>Someone's bluepilled as fuck. Women have a lower average IQ and fewer geniuses which explains why Nabokov doesn't like them. It's not sexism. It's science.
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:55:17 No.7433385▶
>>>7433151
>>Please go back to /his/
>Yes, this thread is totally literature. Don't post off-topic bullshit, guys.
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:55:28 No.7433387▶>>7433393 >>7433408
>>>7433383
>women don't have lower IQ's
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:57:04 No.7433390▶>>7433397
>>>7433380
>You're minimizing it at the very least. My point isn't to attack Nabokov, whom I like, but to demonstrate that even the greats aren't infallible. You shouldn't allow a single mistake to ruin someone's life work.
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:57:42 No.7433393▶>>7433400 >>7433401
>>>7433387
>>Women have a lower average IQ
>It's slightly lower but men still have more geniuses which is why all the best authors, inventors, etc are men
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:59:05 No.7433397▶>>7433411
>>>7433390
>>admitting one of your weaknesses in a letter is the same as misquoting and misconveying someone in a book about science
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)11:59:59 No.7433399▶
>>>7433270
>>correlates to college scores, job performance and income
>wow true intelligence here
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)12:00:08 No.7433400▶
>>>7433393
>>all the best authors, inventors, etc are men
>Citation needed.
>>>
> Anonymous 12/07/15(Mon)12:00:08 No.7433401▶

>>7433470
Yeah, it's results are invalid. The book is being suppressed because it's on the wrong side of history. You don't want to be on the wrong side of history, do you anon? :^)

>>7433466
>>7433470
Not him, but instead of focusing on these more popular books which can be boiled down to a paragraph, which nearly everyone here knows, one should read actual scientific lit--the best textbooks and journals--if they care about this stuff.

This type of stuff is basic intro material that isn't really an intro to anything. After reading it, you don't really have a solid base on scientific concepts but instead you have soundbites that you can use for internet "debates" and pseudointellectual mental masturbation.

>>7433479
Mein Kampf is not a scientific text
read this article
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-research-on-race-and-iq-be-banned/
and tell me the author doesn't know deep in his heart that the Bell Curve is right

>>7433151

Guy you were originally replying to. I know that IQ isn't an entirely subjective and I would agree that there's some base g factor. I didn't really explain my point well because I was trying to get more at the idea that once you start trying to actually apply the g factor to social comparisons between groups you stray outside the realm of controlled experiment and into the highly contextual, complex and uncontrollable world of social science.

Not every measure is inaccurate and I don't think the core underlying idea of g factor is without merit, but even with all this said I would say that IQ tests are a very poor way of trying to understand it.

>>7433140

I wasn't discussing the NLSY tests because those are, as I understand it, simply surveys. Doing some further reading there's a variety of different criticism out there about "The Bell Curve"'s adoption of these statistics. This article seems to offer some fair criticism to a better standard than I could.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-15point.htm

>First of all, the AFQT isn't even an IQ test. "This is an achievement test," said Halford Fairchild of the American Psychological Association said, in its authoritative review of The Bell Curve. "It shows the extent to which you've benefited from school. To assert it's a proxy for IQ is a big lie." (3)

>>7433151

Ever been to a Mensa meetup?

It's a dick-measuring club for actual autists. It's like the Big Bang Theory on bad acid. If those are the best and brightest according to IQ tests, those tests are useless.

>>7433466
>>7433470

There's a difference between reviews and scientific criticism though. A negative review doesn't necessarily mean a work of fiction isn't worth reading, but if the book is scientific in nature than criticism that claims that the data the argument is based on isn't credible does undermine the entire book.

I'm sure the criticism about how horrible the book is is overstated because it's such a political hot topic, but as I have doubts about the underlying data used it doesn't lead me to want to spend my time reading the book when I could rely on more credible sources.

>>7433516
Ever been to 4chan /lit/?

>>7433516
Only losers go to those because successful smart people don't need to go out do their way to meet other smart people. MENSA is only top 2%, which means your high school class probably had a handful of grads who would qualify, and most people at elite universities would qualify. You don't need MENSA is you're meeting potential members at work, school and family reunions.

>>7433525
Book reviews by scientists aren't "scientific". They're just written by scientists, who are just people who work with a specific experimental method a lot. Taking someone's word on what is essentially an epistemological and logical question because they work in a science field is Reddit-tier. You were on the right track when you said that reading the original papers is more important than reading reviews if you want to examine the issue.

>>7433265

If you're still here, could you please tell me how is this book a red pill?

I'm actually a physics graduate student seriously interested in neurosciences, so I'll probably buy it anyway but I didn't get how can this type of book (academic, a priori) be a red pill?

>>7433717
It's only a red pill if you dogmatically believe that there is no genetic factor in intelligence and that if there is one there is no genetic variance in intelligence between populations.

If you're at all openminded on the subject then it's better to read the actual articles it cites.

Hey guys, what do you think of Varg Vikernes' books?

>>7433717
It's not really a redpill. Anyone with a basic knowledge of biology knows genetics plays some role in behaviors we have. High school kids know this. This book doesn't really divulge anything new.

The Kandels textbook can be found online or bought. It's one PhD students in neurosci read. If you're more interested in genetic aspects, I have Griffiths Intro to Genetic Analysis. Biochem is also very important to Neurosci so Voet is the way to go there.

>>7433737
By not a redpill, I mean Bell Curve. And I don't like this dumb Matrix pill terminology.

156 IQ here. I can confirm the validity of this informative book. Smarter people are more successful in the same way that lions dominate the Serengeti: we have the tools to exploit the structural weakness within individuals and the socioeconomic system itself.

Your move, mouth-breathing troglodytes.

>>7432223
It shows how stupid you and all your faggot /pol/ friends are. Because you will read this book and think you're in the front when you're actually in the far, far, far back. The part not even pictured on the cover.

>>7433762
lol xD hijak.wav >_< w r legion

156 IQ here. I can confirm the validity of this informative book. Smarter people are more successful in the same way that lions dominate the Serengeti: we have the tools to exploit the innumerable weaknesses of individuals and of the socio-politico-economic system itself.

Your move, sappy mouth-breathing troglodytes.

>>7433771
lol xD hijak.wav >_< w r legion
^_^

156 IQ here. I can confirm the validity of this informative book. Smarter people are more successful in the same way that lions dominate the Serengeti: we have the tools to exploit the innumerable weaknesses of individuals and of the socio-politico-economic system itself.

Your move, sappy mouth-breathing troglodytes.

>>7433784
lol xD hijak.wav >_< w r legion
:s

>>7433784

>profundity of analogy: 2/10
>pretentiousness of analogy: 8/10

Nice.

>>7433802
2/10+8/10=10/10
I win as always.

>>7433771
>profundity of analogy: 2/10
>pretentiousness of analogy: 8/10

Nice.

>>7433812
>2/10+8/10=10/10
>I win as always.

>>7433784

But lions don't use tools, you fucking idiot.

5/10.

>>7433726 >>7433737

Interesting... I'm certainly not into this idea that everything is a social construct, so I'll think about it twice, especially considering its price.

I take notes for the Griffiths book! It can be interesting too, since I don't know that much about Genetics aside from some courses I've taken in high school and I've read from nazitard authors talking about eugenism.

>>7433820
5/10*2=10/10
I win as always.

>>7433678

I still agree that reading the original papers is more useful for true understanding, but I don't think it's invalid for me as a non-expert to rely on the assessment of people qualified in a field to judge whether a book or piece of work meets expected standards of methodology.

>>7433829
Just depends on how much you care, really. If you think it's an extremely important issue and want to have a firm opinion, then relying on a secondhand assessment isn't adequate. Yeah, loads of people rely on expert reviews, but that's for normies.

>>7433726
>>7433737
it's pretty silly to suggest this book isn't a 'redpill'
while it isn't too controversial to say that intelligence is genetic (though among dogmatic egalitarians this is a sore subject), bringing in the race element will make you very unpopular

>>7433816
>>7433812
Hah, not even me.

Nothing like a communal ruse.

Alas, it is over.

>>7433820
Teeth and claws are biological tools contrived by evolution–for the sake of the analogy, that is–yah numb-nuts.

Now calm your reactionary tendencies and continue lurking before you make a larger fool of yourself.

And just to be clear: I'm am in no way trolling or shitposting. My words as I write them at this moment are entirely sincere and are in no way meant to get a rise out of you. You may think I'm joking, and that my tongue is in my cheek, but I assure you: I am being one hundred percent serious. The truth is: I have Asperger's and cannot comprehend social subtleties and so I must delineate my thoughts exactly as they come to me. And my thinking now is, you're a numb-nuts.

>>7433031
>Read some Foucault
lol no

>>7435168
it's pretty odd to assume that intelligence develops in the same way among different groups of people and that they can be measured to this standard. seems to defy the whole idea of evolution. intelligence isn't pre-ordained

lol at the undergrads in this thread

>>7435782
lol at your neet ass

>yfw IQ is the most empirical thing the social sciences ever did
Equalitarians on suicide watch

This is still on my reading list.

>>7436036
>retweeted
You must be fun at parties.

>>7436036
>Equalitarians

>>7436036

>Pinker pushing his biological evo psych since otherwise he wouldn't have a career

>>7433784

>tfw high IQ
>tfw books like this finally justified my lifelong feelings of superiority
>tfw when arguing with averagefags I run circles around their OODA loops
>tfw I understand in weeks subject fields that take months for averagefags to comprehend
>tfw hypersensitive logical fallacy detector
>tfw instead of being stuck with dichotomous arguments I can reach synthesis
>tfw unironically enlightened by my intelligence

averagefags will never ever know these feels no matter how hard they try.

and the best part is that I didn't earn it, I didn't work for it, I was born with it.

>>7437145
this is my new favorite pasta

le redpilled means le I'm right you're wrong, correct?