/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11692681]

The greatest evolutionary biologist who ever lived, whose work entirely defines the modern understanding of evolution, wrote a definitive proof that IQ is bullshit, more than 30 years ago.
Yet this board keeps pretending like cartoon matching games created by psychologists are useful.

How do you call yourself scientists?

[Anonymous No.11692688]

Retarded hands typed this post

[Anonymous No.11692691]

>>11692688
Since you didn't quote any other post I'm assuming you're talking about your own.

[Anonymous No.11692694]

>>11692681
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11692702]

>Since you didn't quote any other post I'm assuming you're talking about your own.

[Anonymous No.11692703]

>>11692681
Don't expect an actual rebuttal, the only thing IQ-lets do is cry when people call them out.

[Anonymous No.11692705]

>>11692694
>Stephen Jay Gould
>/x/

Do you think Darwin and Fisher and Mendel are also /x/ material? I'm curious about your scientific credentials.

[Anonymous No.11692721]

>>11692681
OP is full of shit, this is a bait thread and he knows it.
But Gould literally fudged the numbers to fit his biased ideology?
When the skulls were re-measured they confirmed Morton's original results

Fuck you and your anti-science denial of basic human diversity. You are what is killing science.

[Anonymous No.11692724]

>>11692681
>flawed premise
>appeal to authority
>strawman
Dismissed.

[Anonymous No.11692760]

>>11692721
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
The mismeasure of science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias (2011)
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071

[Anonymous No.11692822]

>>11692681
>Stephen Jay Gould was born in Queens, New York on September 10, 1941. His father Leonard was a court stenographer and a World War II veteran in the United States Navy. His mother Eleanor was an artist, whose parents were Jewish immigrants
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.11692828]

>>11692681
>greatest evolutionary biologist
>gould
lmao

[Anonymous No.11692844]

>>11692681
Gould is a commie exposed by southerners and british biologists. His entire work is trying to cope with the fact that evolution revolves around the concept of competition and not marxist fairy tales of equality, altruism and good feefees.

[Anonymous No.11692856]

>>11692760
>https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
/thread

[Anonymous No.11692857]

debunked here

[Anonymous No.11692939]

Typical pamphlet that conflates 1800s proto-science regarding race with 2000s IQ research. Because obviously since a field of research was wrong in the year 1800, they must be wrong in the year 2000.

[Anonymous No.11692953]

>>11692939
it also misquotes that 1800s protoscience to promote an agenda

[Anonymous No.11692971]

>>11692844

Socialism and communism are truly remarkable. Always peddled by midwits who think they've struck gold with an ideology that appeals to their own latent insecurity and ego, who occasional happen to convince the masses that it's the right way to go and achieve true equality, and then finally (and always) undone by power hungry despots who take advantage of this weak group, and the centralization of power, for themselves, ultimately contradicting the premise: might does in fact always win. This same fable has played itself out like 50 times over the past century but the pig headed continue to push on with it.

[Anonymous No.11692983]

>>11692681
Gould was a liar and a hack. He deliberately invented his own special evolutionary theory because he didn't want cognitive traits to be heritable. He literally didn't believe micro-evolution could lead to macro-evolution.

[Anonymous No.11692990]

>>11692681
It would be interesting to see if there was a correlation between researchers that said IQ is fake, and researchers who’s IW was measured to be low. Nobody is going to go out of their way to prove they aren’t competent enough for their job

[Anonymous No.11693000]

The most amazing thing is that no one in this thread actually read the book so they're not even arguing against the points made there.

The book argues that "Intelligence" as a concept mapped onto a single quantity is an entirely arbitrary human creation. Maybe you guys could refute this before you continue screeching?

You can measure IQ and show IQ has correlations to all kinds of amazing things, but can you show IQ is a measure of general intelligence? (Pro tip: You cannot).

[Anonymous No.11693013]

>>11693000
High IQ relatively to brain capacity
Highly sensitive to patterns; prone to see patterns where none exists. Tends to overinterpret data.
Compensates by tunnel vision, in order to not get overwhelmed by the pseudopatterns; unperceptive, extreme difficulty interpreting data that requires wider context, or many pieces of information at once. May get stuck in loops of circular thinking where connecting many source of data at once is required.
Poor ability going from concrete to abstract (He keeps stealing my cigarettes -> He's a thief); bad at interpreting experiments. May need specific education how to not fool himself.
Large vocabulary and seemingly expressive speech, but formulaic, with little genuine meaning. Overinterprets behaviors and may expect others to compensate.
Poorly connected neurons. Possible stronger lateralization.

Low IQ relatively to brain capacity.
Unsensitive to patterns, may need strong redundancy to accept a pattern, but resistant to noise. (good at finding "GPS like", sub-noise patterns)
Holistic thinking, can afford to process more thanks to extracting only the strongest patterns. Perceptive, may see the whole field of vision at once.
Better at interpreting experiments, tends not to make hidden assumptions or get fooled by unknown unknowns.
Prefers smaller vocabulary, but relatively high information content. May incorrectly assume the speech of high IQ people contains more information than it actually does. Tends to unintentionally mislead high IQ people, who have trouble processing the more productive speech or may read between the lines what was not intended; fails to read between the lines what the high IQ people intended.
Highly connected neurons; may be less lateralized.

Many of the "geniuses" might have been low IQ people who managed to push through by gathering more information. Even Grothendieck said that he was decidedly less bright than others, but succeeded by learning things more thoroughly and did things that mattered.

[Anonymous No.11693024]

>>11693013
>(He keeps stealing my cigarettes -> He's a thief)
this is bait

[Anonymous No.11693044]

>>11693013
Good breakdown

[Anonymous No.11693052]

>>11693000
Yes we can find g in other species, like chimps.
Iq is not a "measure of g", its test batteries can be used to predict g. g is a factor, that correlates with all other sub tests, we know it exists because of iq tests. We didn't come up with g then invent iq to measure it - they are co-discoveries.
You seem to not know what you are talking about, so here is a short introduction to Goulds mistakes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbKM_BNpzwc

[Anonymous No.11693055]

>>11692681
This has to be bait. Everyone knows by now that book is quackery.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

Morton never lied about his skulls.

[Anonymous No.11693085]

>>11692856
Lewis was thoroughly refuted, nice try /pol/tard:

http://philpapers.org/archive/KAPGOM.pdf

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/06/24/defending-stephen-jay-goulds-crusade-against-biological-determinism/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html

https://cbs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PDFS/remeasuring-man.pdf

[Anonymous No.11693092]

>>11693000
Stuart Richie's book on intelligence mapped this out pretty plainly. IQ measures intelligence better than any other conceivable metric.

[Anonymous No.11693108]

>>11693000
>how can you criticize the bible without reading it cover to cover?

[Anonymous No.11693121]

>>11693055
Wrong. See >>11693085

[Anonymous No.11693132]

>>11692760
>>11693085

[Anonymous No.11693141]

>>11693108

My parents made me read through the Bible as a kid and I immediately realized it was all bullshit due to that. Sometimes it's better to keep your audience in the dark.

[Anonymous No.11693171]

>>11693085
None of these is a thorough refutation of Lewis. They remeasured the skulls found Mortons lead shot measurements were correct. Gould claims there was racial bias in the pepper seed measurements - which is impossible to prove, and irrelevant since we now have modern data.

[Anonymous No.11693230]

>>11693000
I had to read it.
Gould writings are more often than not blurry word salad, ironically it's pretty much high verbal IQ propelling critical theory tier logorrhea that doesn't advance anything.

I prefer actual scientists who come with clear systems and propositions. It's easy to be a critics, it's harder to come with something new.
Punctuated equilibrium is arguably a good theory but even there he promoted it by strawmaning Darwin and Dawkins like there was no tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.11693251]

>>11693085
>Lewis was thoroughly refuted
>But these motivations are not a reason to discount the group's critique.
read your own sources, ffs this is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.11693260]

>>11693251
It's funny in a way to watch them scrabble

[Anonymous No.11693270]

>>11693092
What's his definition of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.11693282]

>>11693251
The other errors are though, nice try /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.11693296]

>>11693282
>The other errors are though
such as? actually measuring skulls objectively like gould didn't do? the only error is needing reality to conform to your biases here, sjwtard.
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.11693306]

>>11692681
>(((Gould)))

[Anonymous No.11693475]

>>11693296
>such as?
Did you read the articles I posted? Lewis misrepresented Gould's arguments, didn't measure most of the skulls in the data set, and didn't normalize measurements by age, height or gender. They failed to counter the fact Morton mismeasured the skulls according to his bias and drew conclusions that could not be drawn from the data. Learn how to read /pol/tard.

[Anonymous No.11693510]

>>11693475
>Lewis misrepresented Gould's arguments
not really, he directly countered his assertion that morton mismiseasured his skulls due to his racist bias. now we know that is not true.
>didn't measure most of the skulls in the data set
he measured a bunch unlike gould measuring none. it's called sampling.
>and didn't normalize measurements by age, height or gender
neither did morton, they were just looking at averages. that was something gould could've criticized morton but was too much of a brainlet too.
>They failed to counter the fact Morton mismeasured the skulls according to his bias and drew conclusions that could not be drawn from the data.
no by measuring the skulls and doing an average they directly replicated the study with a sample of the skulls. you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.11693513]

>>11693475
No where does it say goulds arguments are misrepresented. It simply states in places there were more to his arguments than what lewis addressed. This is all dandy, as lewis specifically stated what he was refuting about goulds claims. Nothing is going on under the radar here.

We don't need Mortons data anyway, we can just use modern data, so the point is mute.

[Anonymous No.11693518]

>>11692681
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2007008
> Gould suggested that this bias was unconscious because Morton, commendably, openly published his data [36] (as this paper shows, contra Gould, Morton published many—but not all—of his data).
>Moreover, an enlarged sample of direct seed—shot comparisons possible with the recovered seed data presented here does not support Gould’s claim of Morton’s unconscious bias.
>Gould’s claim of Morton’s bias in seed measures may yet stand, but there is no evidence for it in the only relevant seed data known—presented here—and its plausibility is significantly hampered by the sample differences between 1839 and 1849, noted above.
>Many of Gould’s criticisms, and more, can be found among 19th century commentaries on Morton’s work [24,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. However, as suggested by Weisberg and Paul [58], “the measurement issue” remains Gould’s novel, outstanding, and perhaps strongest argument for Morton’s unconscious bias in his cranial race science. While this analysis of the new seed data does not support Gould’s claim of Morton’s unconscious bias as revealed in his seed measures, Morton’s results cannot be said to be free of significant impact by his racial biases [52]: Gould’s general diagnosis of Morton’s “a priori conviction of racial ranking so powerful that it directed his tabulations along preestablished lines” [36] remains perceptive.
tldr Gould got so much wrong and just has conjecture that Morton was biased and influenced his work. Well no shit, everyone is biased.

[Anonymous No.11693536]

>>11692681
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2007008
>Gould suggested that this bias was unconscious because Morton, commendably, openly published his data [36] (as this paper shows, contra Gould, Morton published many—but not all—of his data).
>Moreover, an enlarged sample of direct seed—shot comparisons possible with the recovered seed data presented here does not support Gould’s claim of Morton’s unconscious bias.
>Gould’s claim of Morton’s bias in seed measures may yet stand, but there is no evidence for it in the only relevant seed data known—presented here—and its plausibility is significantly hampered by the sample differences between 1839 and 1849, noted above.
>Many of Gould’s criticisms, and more, can be found among 19th century commentaries on Morton’s work [24,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. However, as suggested by Weisberg and Paul [58], “the measurement issue” remains Gould’s novel, outstanding, and perhaps strongest argument for Morton’s unconscious bias in his cranial race science. While this analysis of the new seed data does not support Gould’s claim of Morton’s unconscious bias as revealed in his seed measures, Morton’s results cannot be said to be free of significant impact by his racial biases [52]: Gould’s general diagnosis of Morton’s “a priori conviction of racial ranking so powerful that it directed his tabulations along preestablished lines” [36] remains perceptive.
tldr Gould got so much wrong and just has conjecture that Morton was biased and influenced his work. Well no shit, everyone is biased. The only thing Gould got right is to say based on this research you can't prove racial rankings. Well no shit again. Gould is a miserable scientist and a fraud.

[Anonymous No.11693539]

>>11692822
/thread

[Anonymous No.11693543]

>>11692822
kek

[Anonymous No.11693553]

>IQ is fake
Nice try, reddit brainlets. It's bad at the level of individuals, and that's the best cope you'll ever get to prove.

[Anonymous No.11693696]

>>11693510
>not really, he directly countered his assertion that morton mismiseasured his skulls due to his racist bias. now we know that is not true.
He failed to counter it. See the Weisberg article.

>he measured a bunch unlike gould measuring none. it's called sampling.
Gould worked off of Morton's own data set, re-measurements are not even relevant to Gould's argument. See the Kaplan paper.

>neither did morton, they were just looking at averages. that was something gould could've criticized morton but was too much of a brainlet too.
He did criticize Morton for that. Good job at illustrating your ignorance of the topic you're attempting to discuss. And thanks for admitting Morton's analysis was faulty.

>no by measuring the skulls and doing an average they directly replicated the study with a sample of the skulls.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.11693736]

>>11693696
>He failed to counter it. See the Weisberg article.
what was his argument?

>Gould worked off of Morton's own data set, re-measurements are not even relevant to Gould's argument.
so he has nothing but conjecture. the only way to prove morton was manipulating the data is to replicate the experiment. something gould didn't do. he just screeched bias with nothing to back it up.

>He did criticize Morton for that.
show me where.

>Good job at illustrating your ignorance of the topic you're attempting to discuss. And thanks for admitting Morton's analysis was faulty.
yeah no shit morton's analysis was faulty but so was gould's. you know two people can be hacks at the same time.

>You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
then show me where, i'm not gonna bother reading some shit based on assumptions like gould did. ffs if the faggot can't even be bothered to measure the skulls why should anyone be bothered to read his shit?

the reason gould has nothing is because he didn't even bother to do the minimal research necessary to prove his point, ie measure the fucking skulls.

[Anonymous No.11693741]

>>11693513
>No where does it say goulds arguments are misrepresented.
Kaplan paper:

"We next
explore briefly some of the ways in which Lewis et al.’s article
misrepresents Gould’s basic claims, as well as misrepresenting the
ways in which Gould’s claims are generally interpreted and used."

Nice reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.11693746]

>>11693741
>"We next
>explore briefly some of the ways in which Lewis et al.’s article
>misrepresents Gould’s basic claims, as well as misrepresenting the
>ways in which Gould’s claims are generally interpreted and used."
so show us these ways. do it monkey.

[Anonymous No.11693809]

>>11693736
>what was his argument?
Read it yourself.

>so he has nothing but conjecture.
The irony is palpable. You would not need to make up such claims if you simply read what he wrote.

>the only way to prove morton was manipulating the data is to replicate the experiment.
Wrong.

>show me where.
Page 68 of The Mismeasurement of Man.

>yeah no shit morton's analysis was faulty but so was gould's.
Weisberg: "Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases"

>then show me where, i'm not gonna bother reading some shit based on assumptions like gould did.
If you didn't read the articles then how do you know what assumptions they're based on? The only one assuming things is you, since you refuse to read. You expect others to accept the Lewis paper but won't accept criticisms of Lewis. This is massive hypocrisy.

>the reason gould has nothing is because he didn't even bother to do the minimal research necessary to prove his point, ie measure the fucking skulls.
As I already said, and as the Kaplan paper explains, re-measurements are irrelevant to Gould's claims. Keep repeating already debunked claims because you refuse to read, it's really helping your argument.

[Anonymous No.11693819]

>>11693746
>so show us these ways. do it monkey.
I already did. Your refusal to read is not my problem. Thanks for admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.11693849]

>>11693809
>Read it yourself.
no bitch. what was his point?

>The irony is palpable. You would not need to make up such claims if you simply read what he wrote.
gould's whole schtick is predicated on morton supposedly packing in the shot more tightly in whites than blacks. something he could've done but had nothing but conjecture. yet you take this as proof morton did that. "gould sait it, i belive it, that settles it".

>Wrong
right, how else could he have done it?

>Page 68 of The Mismeasurement of Man.
pull the quote out.

>Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound
lmao, not really re-measurement of the skulls show that is bs.

>he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases
except we have lewis et al showing that is bs.

>If you didn't read the articles then how do you know what assumptions they're based on?
i read the nature one. the only one what wasn't written by some philosophy major hacks.

>The only one assuming things is you, since you refuse to read.
much like gould refusing to do an actual analysis.

>You expect others to accept the Lewis paper but won't accept criticisms of Lewis. This is massive hypocrisy.
lewis did actual research, not just sat on an armchair and made up conjecture. he put the rubber to the road.

>re-measurements are irrelevant to Gould's claims
so all you have is conjecture then. you need to prove the skulls were mismeasured if you're gonna claim that.

>Keep repeating already debunked claims because you refuse to read, it's really helping your argument.
screeching debunked over and over again without being able to explain why won't help you.

>>11693819
bitch, you need to explain your point. so far all you have done was screech debunked without explaining why.

[Anonymous No.11693855]

>>11693809
>Read it yourself.
no bitch. what was his point?

>The irony is palpable. You would not need to make up such claims if you simply read what he wrote.
gould's whole schtick is that morton was supposedly packing in the shot or seed more tightly in whites than blacks. something he could've done but had nothing but conjecture. yet you take this as proof morton did that. "gould sait it, i belive it, that settles it".

>Wrong
right, how else could he have done it?

>Page 68 of The Mismeasurement of Man.
pull the quote out.

>Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound
lmao, not really re-measurement of the skulls show that is bs.

>he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases
except we have lewis et al showing that is bs.

>If you didn't read the articles then how do you know what assumptions they're based on?
i read the nature one. the only one what wasn't written by some philosophy major hacks.

>The only one assuming things is you, since you refuse to read.
much like gould refusing to do an actual analysis.

>You expect others to accept the Lewis paper but won't accept criticisms of Lewis. This is massive hypocrisy.
lewis did actual research, not just sat on an armchair and made up conjecture. he put the rubber to the road.

>re-measurements are irrelevant to Gould's claims
so all you have is conjecture then. you need to prove the skulls were mismeasured if you're gonna claim that.

>Keep repeating already debunked claims because you refuse to read, it's really helping your argument.
screeching debunked over and over again without being able to explain why won't help you.

>>11693819
bitch, you need to explain your point. so far all you have done was screech debunked without explaining why.

[Anonymous No.11693861]

Wait...hang on a sec...I got lost reading the thread, was Morton debunked or Gould?

[Anonymous No.11693863]

>>11693861
gould was as much a hack as morton. both pushed bs without having sufficient evidence for it.

[Anonymous No.11693866]

>>11693855
>he put the rubber to the road.
or in this case the lead shot in the skull

[Anonymous No.11693868]

>>11693866
carlos lmao

[Anonymous No.11693869]

>>11693863
So were Morton's lead shot measurements valid or not?

[Anonymous No.11693876]

>>11693869
the numbers he got were accurate but he failed to account for age and some other traits. he was also wrong to take these measurements and go "therefore whites are superior hurp durp"
see: >>11693536
.

[Anonymous No.11693881]

>>11693876
So who performed the greater sin?

[Anonymous No.11693890]

>>11693876
>"therefore whites are superior hurp durp"
how does that square with asian skull volumes?

[Anonymous No.11693894]

>>11693881
gould imo. when morton was alive i don't expect scientific rigor to be up to snuff as was expected during gould's time.

[Anonymous No.11693902]

>>11693894
So OP is a bundle of sticks?

[Anonymous No.11693904]

>>11693890
idk, it's really funny relying on this data for anything. we have voxel based mri measurements now. so gould running to some 18th or whatever century dataset to disprove differences in cranial capacities between races is nothing but a dumb fallacy fallacy. ofc if there are differences that are heritable between races in intelligence that doesn't mean rights shouldn't be on an individual basis.

>>11693902
yes.

[Anonymous No.11693935]

>>11693876
>he was also wrong to take these measurements and go "therefore whites are superior hurp durp"
no one has ever done this.

[Anonymous No.11693962]

>>11692681
https://archive.is/N75bu
>Leaving aside which calculation method would be the best method to use, Morton clearly did not select his method to skew results toward his supposed bias. Yet when Gould reanalyzed Morton’s numbers, he calculated a higher average for the Native American skulls (83.8in3 vs. 79.9in3). How did he get this number? Well, Gould only used population samples with an n greater than 4, and then erroneously excluded 6 crania, all with small cranial capacities. Further, Gould only included skulls that Morton had measured both with mustard seed (his early measuring method) and with lead shot (his later method, which he adopted to eliminate the variation using seed might introduce). Interestingly, the authors point out, Gould did not use this same criteria when reanalyzing other populations.
>The problem with Gould’s approach was that Morton reported individual seed-based measurements only in his volume Crania Americana (4), and these were only for Native American crania. Gould reported an average increase for these crania of 2.2in3. When the authors looked at the numbers and not just the average they found that there were increases and decreases, and these changes did not appear to be patterned by group; one skull in a subpopulation increased by 12in3 and another in the same subpopulation decreased by 5.5in3. This casts doubt on the idea that the mismeasurements were a result of bias. Since the only individual seed-based measurements Morton reported were for the Native American subpopulations, how did Gould arrive at his claims about the changes in other populations? Well, these authors contend, he must have done so by “guessing” which skulls had been included.

[Anonymous No.11693965]

>>11693962
>In the final table of Morton’s Crania Americana, the Native American mean cranial capacity was erroneously reported as 82.4in3 rather than 80.2in3. In this error, Gould saw Morton’s deliberate attempt to maintain his scale of Caucasion/Native American/Blacks. However, the correct value is given in the text, so the possibility of a typographical error in the table seems likely. In addition, the authors found reports of copies of Crania Americana inscribed by Morton with the number corrected and later reproductions of the table also contain the corrected value. This suggests that the error was recognized and corrected. Finally, the overall order of mean crania capacity didn’t change using either number; effectively removing Morton’s supposed motivation for allowing the error to go uncorrected.
>Of all the accusations Gould leveled against Morton, the authors of this study found only two to be substantiated. First, there were several errors in the summary table of Morton’s final catalog published in 1849. However, counter to Gould’s arguments, the authors found that had Morton not made these errors, the numbers would have actually supported his presumed bias better than the published numbers did.
>Secondly, Morton undoubtedly believed in the idea of different races. This belief is clear in the opening pages of his Crania Americana, and Morton made no effort to hide them. Yet despite his bias, the authors found that Morton’s measurements are reliable and fully reported.
>Ironically, it seems that it was Gould’s analysis that was flawed and influenced by his biases. Where the results reported in this study falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data, they also lend support his greater hypothesis that “Unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science”, as his analysis of Morton is a strong example of bias influencing results.

[Anonymous No.11693974]

>>11693809
>Read it yourself.
this reply means either that you are just a troll masquerading as an sjw or that you are a total brainlet who has no idea what the argument is. I think it's the first alternative.

[Anonymous No.11693986]

>>11693855
>no bitch. what was his point?
"Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facia evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases"

>gould's whole schtick is that morton was supposedly packing in the shot or seed more tightly in whites than blacks.
That is one of his points, not his whole argument. But this is at least progress in your understanding of the topic.

>something he could've done but had nothing but conjecture.
No Morton published his procedures for each study. We know when he used seeds and when he used lead. You would too, if you actually read sources instead of conjecturing that everything is conjecture.

>right, how else could he have done it?
You just gave a prime example. Morton told us his procedure. We can see the procedure is faulty on its face without redoing it.

>pull the quote out.
No, you should get it yourself. Apparently the only way to get you to read is to force you to defend yourself.

>lmao, not really re-measurement of the skulls show that is bs.
I already refuted this. Keep repeating it.

>except we have lewis et al showing that is bs.
And I showed Lewis is BS. If you won't read it then you must accept it, the same as how you believe others should accept Lewis.

>i read the nature one. the only one what wasn't written by some philosophy major hacks.
Kaplan has a biologist author. So why won't you read it? Is it because you have no response?

>much like gould refusing to do an actual analysis.
He did an actual analysis. Nice false conjecture.

>so all you have is conjecture then.
You're projecting. And this doesn't justify the massive hypocrisy of expecting everyone to accept Lewis while you won't even read criticisms of Lewis. You're taking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.11694007]

>>11693855
>>you need to prove the skulls were mismeasured if you're gonna claim that.
Gould already did. And Lewis failed to counter the proof.

>screeching debunked over and over again without being able to explain why won't help you.
I don't see how giving you a very accessible article that explains everything is a failure to explain. And you already presented an example of how re-measurement is irrelevant.

>bitch, you need to explain your point.
My point is that the Weisberg article explains how Lewis misrepresented Gould. Why would I spoonfeed a brief, very accessible article to you? Are you a baby?

[Anonymous No.11694015]

>>11693974
No, it means that if you are going to present a paper as proof you should be prepared to read criticisms of that paper.

[Anonymous No.11694030]

>>11693986
>Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound
not really, otherwise upon remeasuring the skulls we wouldn't find morton's measurements replicated.

>that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases"
so reality conforms to 19th century racial biases? yikes.

>not his whole argument.
his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements, yet when we sample the skulls and measure them we find they fit with morton's results.

>We know when he used seeds and when he used lead.
see: >>11693962

>Morton told us his procedure. We can see the procedure is faulty on its face without redoing it.
ofc, it's 19th century science put to our modern day standards. but gould made claims about the procedure that were pure conjecture such as stated: "his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements." that is why gould is a hack like morton, however morton was living in a different time and does not have our standards of rigor to live up to. gould does yet this antivaxxer tier retard is touted around as a hero.

>No, you should get it yourself.
no, bitch. i'm not getting a book you own. get the quote, i don't care enough to go to libgen.

>And I showed Lewis is BS.
no you didn't. lewis et al remain undefeated.

>He did an actual analysis. Nice false conjecture.
nope, he speculated that gould manipulated his data based on nothing. too lazy to get off his crusty ass and just measure the damn things.

>Gould already did. And Lewis failed to counter the proof.
lewis showed that morton's measurements hold when remeausring idk how you think gould still stands up to that. lmao you really are the biggest brainlet.

>My point is that the Weisberg article explains how Lewis misrepresented Gould.
he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11694038]

>>11693986
>>11694007
Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

[Anonymous No.11694060]

>>11694007
>And you already presented an example of how re-measurement is irrelevant.
no it isn't because we're looking at the morton dataset. that's all this is about.

[Anonymous No.11694077]

>>11692681
>>11693986
>Most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound
not really, otherwise upon remeasuring the skulls we wouldn't find morton's measurements replicated.

>that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases"
so reality conforms to 19th century racial biases? yikes.

>not his whole argument.
his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements, yet when we sample the skulls and measure them we find they fit with morton's results.

>We know when he used seeds and when he used lead.
see: >>11693962 (You)

>Morton told us his procedure. We can see the procedure is faulty on its face without redoing it.
ofc, it's 19th century science put to our modern day standards. but gould made claims about the procedure that were pure conjecture such as stated: "his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements." that is why gould is a hack like morton, however morton was living in a different time and does not have our standards of rigor to live up to. gould does yet this antivaxxer tier retard is touted around as a hero.

>No, you should get it yourself.
no, bitch. i'm not getting a book you own. get the quote, i don't care enough to go to libgen.

>And I showed Lewis is BS.
no you didn't. lewis et al remain undefeated.

>He did an actual analysis. Nice false conjecture.
nope, he speculated that morton manipulated his data based on nothing. too lazy to get off his crusty ass and just measure the damn things.

>Gould already did. And Lewis failed to counter the proof.
lewis showed that morton's measurements hold when remeausring idk how you think gould still stands up to that. lmao you really are the biggest brainlet.

>My point is that the Weisberg article explains how Lewis misrepresented Gould.
he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11694085]

>>11692857
Nice gif dumbass. You`re proof enough that iq is real, considering yours is beaten by a clock most hours of the day.

[Anonymous No.11694107]

>>11692857
The Bell Curve self debunks itself with the amount of back peddling it goes through
>>11693108
You can it's that your opinion would be pretty worthless

[Anonymous No.11694114]

>>11694107
have you read it?

[Anonymous No.11694139]

>>11693741
I mean they say that but never actually demonstrate it. I could just as easily say they are over reading Goulds basic points, which were refuted by Lewis's study.

[Anonymous No.11694141]

>>11694114
I've read the Bell Curve but not the Bible

[Anonymous No.11694158]

>>11692705
Gould's book was an obvious misrepresentation of psychometrics. In the book he literally tries to take pre-19th century "science" and say that that's basically what modern IQ research is. The entire book is more of an anthropological overview of the history of intelligence research before the genetic revolution. The parts with any real substance in an effort to refute modern IQ science intentionally misleads the reader, such as intentionally using tampered measurements from Morton's infamous craniometry work. The book is the definition of ideology clouding thought.

[Anonymous No.11694162]

>>11692705
>Darwin and Fisher and Mendel
>Gould
one of these is not like the other. one of these does not belong.

[Anonymous No.11694182]

I would also just like to point out we can measure brain volume with MRI now. Modern data makes this whole argument irrelevant, unless you are arguing i) Gould is giving us something super important in his work missed by modern scientists (False)
ii) Lewis was disingenuous (False)
iii) Mortons data is ultra important for the study of difference of cognitive ability between the races (False) Bear in mind most people hadn't heard of Morton before Gould.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.558.6142&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Anonymous No.11694203]

>>11692822
/thread

[Anonymous No.11694213]

Another point is that in Mismeasure of man Gould attacked several dead men who could not defend their theories. Morton is only the most well known example. Rushton gives a good overview here:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)80984-1

Why did Gould choose to attack dead men instead of modern scientists?

[Anonymous No.11694224]

>>11694038
>However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's.
Which, again, is irrelevant to Gould's argument. Here are what Gould said is wrong:

1. Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples within racial groups in order to match group averages with prior expectations

2. Morton used seed that would be arbitrarily packed into the skull to measure volume. Measurements of the same skulls with more accurate lead shot showed the seed method resulted in systematic underestimation of non-white skulls.

3. Morton failed to control for confounding factors such as age, gender and height.

4. Morton's accidental miscalculations and omissions systematically increased white skull volume or decreased non-white skull volume

Re-measurememt of the skulls is completely irrelevant to all four of these mistakes. Because you don't even know what you're arguing against, you incorrectly assumed that re-measurement was necessary to argue against Morton and sufficient to counter Gould. But it's neither.

>There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.
There is no need to go around what never blocked your path in the first place.

>However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's.
They didn't even measure most of the skulls, so there is no reason to assume their average is representative of Morton's. You also fail to realize that one can be consistent with Morton by repeating his errors, such as measuring the same, misrepresentative samples as he did and failing to normalize the data as he did. You assume consistency is everything when it's actually nothing.

[Anonymous No.11694227]

>>11694060
>no it isn't because we're looking at the morton dataset. that's all this is about.
Yes, that's the Morton dataset that made that mistake. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous No.11694233]

>>11694224
Why is Mortons data so important anyway? Even if everything you claim is true, so what?

Why not just use modern data?

[Anonymous No.11694249]

>>11694224
Morton was around in the 1840s right? So this is before the major developments of the field of statistics? And how many skulls would a man back then reasonably have access to?

Also Mortons results give similar results to later scientists. "He argues that, in effect, Paul Broca, Francis Galton, and Samuel George Morton, all erred in the same direction and by similar magnitudes. Implausibly, Gould asks us to believe that Broca ‘leaned’ on his autopsy scales when measuring wet brains by just enough to produce the same differences that Morton caused by ‘over-packing’ empty skulls using filler, as did Galton’s ‘extra loose’ grip on calipers while measuring heads!"

[Anonymous No.11694283]

>>11694224
>1. Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples within racial groups in order to match group averages with prior expectations
conjecture. gould has nothing to prove this, he just states it with nothing to back it up.

>2. Morton used seed that would be arbitrarily packed into the skull to measure volume. Measurements of the same skulls with more accurate lead shot showed the seed method resulted in systematic underestimation of non-white skulls.
that was debunked here: >>11693962
>>11693536

>3. Morton failed to control for confounding factors such as age, gender and height.
that is fair.

>4. Morton's accidental miscalculations and omissions systematically increased white skull volume or decreased non-white skull volume
wrong, see: >>11693965

so that's 1/4 legit arguments, everything else has been debunked by lewis et al's re-measurements.

>Re-measurememt of the skulls is completely irrelevant to all four of these mistakes.
wrong, it directly assesses the validity of point 2. as for 1 and 3, that is pure conjecture.

>They didn't even measure most of the skulls
it's called random sampling. more than gould has done.

>>11694227
>that's the Morton dataset that made that mistake.
morton had sampling issues but gould claimed more than that which is why he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.11694297]

>>11692681
IQ might not be perfect, but it is a consistent indicator of success in individuals. Less so on the average to high end, but those who score low IQs (sub 100) are consistently "less successful" people by modern measures. Its just an output measurement from a black box, humans don't know how intelligence works, we just threw some shit at the wall until we got a half decent success prediction test - far from perfect, but the most serviceable thing made by humans to date, on how to guess the intellect of people.

[Anonymous No.11694298]

>>11692822
Good job, anon.

[Anonymous No.11694305]

>>11694224
>You also fail to realize that one can be consistent with Morton by repeating his errors, such as measuring the same, misrepresentative samples as he did and failing to normalize the data as he did. You assume consistency is everything when it's actually nothing.
Gould's argument was that had Morton not biased his results the means would be the same. So by Lewis et al redoing their procedure they show Gould was wrong. There is no way around this. Normalization is a modern statistical approach that was not available to Morton so your argument is moot.

[Anonymous No.11694317]

>>11694249
>Morton was around in the 1840s right? So this is before the major developments of the field of statistics?
he is moving the goalpost by bringing in normalization. gould's point was morton biased the results of those skull volume measurement means. lewis et al thoroughly debunk that by taking a random sample and redoing the calculation. if he wants to argue morton's approach was outdated ofc, it's fucking 1840 as you say. this guy is so desperate it is just sad.

[Anonymous No.11694320]

>>11694283
mean pts 1 and 4. are pure conjecture. the only argument gould has is 3.

[Anonymous No.11694340]

>>11694317
Yeah, Gould also famously ignored the 1974 Van Valen study:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajpa.1330400314
which estimated a correlation of 0.3 between brain size and intelligence. Proof of Goulds sloppy scholarship because that was a big study at the time.

Modern MRI statistics give us an even stronger correlation of 0.4.

[Anonymous No.11694341]

>>11694283
I do wonder for point 3 if Morton didn't account for age and sex. Were the skulls ever analyzed for this in recent years to see what their age and sex was?

[Anonymous No.11694371]

>>11694077
>not really, otherwise upon remeasuring the skulls we wouldn't find morton's measurements replicated.
Wrong. See above.

>so reality conforms to 19th century racial biases? yikes.
You assume Lewis is "reality" while ignoring they repeated Morton's errors.

>his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements
No, it's not. Again, if you make claims about things you don't actually know, you make an ass out of yourself. This is why you should read.

>see: >>11693962 #
This is just rehashing Lewis and was already refuted by Weisberg. See pages 171-172 for the refutation of these specific claims. Yet again you embarrass yourself by making arguments I've already addressed, all because of your failure to read.

>ofc, it's 19th century science put to our modern day standards.
Then why did you say remeasuring the skulls is necessary to critique it?

>but gould made claims about the procedure that were pure conjecture such as stated: "his whole argument is that morton did a number of things to bias his results such that skulls do not have the same measurements."
Gould demonstrated this, its not conjecture and has never been refuted. Perhaps you are confused. Perhaps you believe Gould said that Morton did this consciously. That would be conjecture. But Gould explicitly said that he didn't believe Morton did this consciously. So what conjecture is there?

>however morton was living in a different time and does not have our standards of rigor to live up to.
So what? This is irrelevant to Gould's point.

>no, bitch. i'm not getting a book you own.
Your willful ignorance is not my problem.

>lewis et al remain undefeated.
Your willful ignorance of the defeat does not make it go away. Lewis remains refuted. You lose.

>nope, he speculated that morton manipulated his data based on nothing.
So Morton's data is "nothing?" You're projecting the basis of your own argument onto others.

[Anonymous No.11694378]

>>11694182
iv) Morton mismeasured his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases

[Anonymous No.11694382]

>>11694378
sounds like 19th century racial biases were true then, uh-oh

[Anonymous No.11694385]

>>11694213
What bias do modern scientists have that Gould does not himself have?

[Anonymous No.11694386]

>>11692681
science loves making shit more complicated than it needs to be so it can seem smart. racial differences exist and affect reality. /thread

[Anonymous No.11694390]

>>11694233
>Why is Mortons data so important anyway?
It's not, it's an example.

>Even if everything you claim is true, so what?
Scientific measurement can be affected by bias, even unconsciously.

>Why not just use modern data?
See >>11694385

[Anonymous No.11694393]

>>11694371
>>11694371
not him but that last point: he is saying Gould speculated based on nothing not Morton.

Why did Gould ignore the Van Valen study>>11694340
Why did Gould attack morton, and if Morton did something so wrong why did later scientists find very similar results>>11694249
Why do modern MRI studies lean in favour of Morton over Gould.

[Anonymous No.11694395]

>>11694371
>Wrong. See above.
you mean here?: >>11694283

>You assume Lewis is "reality" while ignoring they repeated Morton's errors.
morotn made errors no shit, it's fucking 1840. that's not the point here so lemme spell it out for you again:
Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

>No, it's not. Again, if you make claims about things you don't actually know, you make an ass out of yourself.
that's exactly what this is about, don't even pretend like it's not. the only person making an ass out of themselves is you, brainlet.

>This is just rehashing Lewis and was already refuted by Weisberg. See pages 171-172 for the refutation of these specific claims
weisberg doesn't refute shit.

>Gould demonstrated this, its not conjecture and has never been refuted. Perhaps you are confused.
then the re-measurement would show the means are the same yet they're not and in line with morton's. sorry but you're just denying reality at this point.

>So Morton's data is "nothing?
yes, and gould attacking him is as petty for making such a big deal out of nothing.

[Anonymous No.11694400]

>>11694371
>Lewis remains refuted. You lose.
Meanwhile in reality: Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any. However when Lewis et al went and re-measured them and re-calculated the averages they found their measurements and calculations were consistent with Morton's. There is no way around this. No amount of philosophy major screeching changes this fact and that Gould was a hack.

[Anonymous No.11694401]

>>11694390
>Scientific measurement can be affected by bias
Well you'd have to prove the unconscious part as Gould just asserts that lots of scientists have almost exactly the same implicit bias>>11694249
. If you are claiming there is modern racial bias that is insane.

>Mortons data is not important
So why do you get so uppety when people say the lead shot studies are reproducible?

[Anonymous No.11694409]

Gould claimed Morton unconsciously manipulated the measurements of his collection of skulls to show differences in means when there supposedly weren't any. Lewis et al took a random sample of these skulls and re-measured and re-calculated the means to find they are consistent with Morton. So Gould's claims regarding Morton are debunked thoroughly. No amount of liberal arts major screeching will change that.

Gould claimed Morton unconsciously manipulated the measurements of his collection of skulls to show differences in means when there supposedly weren't any. Lewis et al took a random sample of these skulls and re-measured and re-calculated the means to find they are consistent with Morton. So Gould's claims regarding Morton are debunked thoroughly. No amount of liberal arts major screeching will change that.

Gould claimed Morton unconsciously manipulated the measurements of his collection of skulls to show differences in means when there supposedly weren't any. Lewis et al took a random sample of these skulls and re-measured and re-calculated the means to find they are consistent with Morton. So Gould's claims regarding Morton are debunked thoroughly. No amount of liberal arts major screeching will change that.

Gould claimed Morton unconsciously manipulated the measurements of his collection of skulls to show differences in means when there supposedly weren't any. Lewis et al took a random sample of these skulls and re-measured and re-calculated the means to find they are consistent with Morton. So Gould's claims regarding Morton are debunked thoroughly. No amount of liberal arts major screeching will change that.

[Anonymous No.11694419]

>>11694409
kek

[Anonymous No.11694420]

>>11694249
>Morton was around in the 1840s right? So this is before the major developments of the field of statistics?
There is no advanced statistics needed to see that gender, age, and height are confounding factors in comparing skull sizes.

>And how many skulls would a man back then reasonably have access to?
Many, the Morton collection is very large.

>Also Mortons results give similar results to later scientists.
"What does it mean to write that the “data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully” (Lewis et al. 2011 6)? Is the claim merely that Morton accurately measured those skulls that happened to fall into his collection, and whose measurements he happened to think were worth including? Or is the claim rather that since “Morton’s methods were sound,” we expect that if we surveyed cranial capacities using larger and statistically sound samples from the same locations and time periods, etc., and attempted to match the populations to those that Morton thought he was sampling, we would find that the average cranial capacities were similar to those reported by Morton?18 Lewis et al. are not entirely clear about this. And this seems something that one ought to be very clear about."

[Anonymous No.11694429]

>>11692688
>>11694428
Based

[Anonymous No.11694431]

>>11694420
>There is no advanced statistics needed to see that gender, age, and height are confounding factors in comparing skull sizes.
has there ever been an analysis on the skulls to show they varied by age and sex in a way that it would cause the artifacts?

> Lewis et al. are not entirely clear about this. And this seems something that one ought to be very clear about."
did he try asking for clarification?

[Anonymous No.11694435]

>>11694433
*based

[Anonymous No.11694462]

>>11694420
I can see have very big hands, clutching this many straws.
You cannot refute the modern data, so you attempt to "debunk" some guys work from the 1840s, in the hope wet brains will believe theres some big conspiracy behind the modern data.

[Anonymous No.11694487]

>>11694283
>conjecture. gould has nothing to prove this, he just states it with nothing to back it up.
He has Morton's description of his sampling procedures, which is all one needs to show it. Kaplan discusses this on pages 5-8.

>that was debunked here: >>11693962
That was debunked by Weisberg on 171-172.

>wrong, see: >>11693965
One example does not prove Gould wrong.

>so that's 1/4 legit arguments, everything else has been debunked by lewis et al's re-measurements.
Lewis's measurements are irrelevant.

>wrong, it directly assesses the validity of point 2.
It doesn't. See above.

>as for 1 and 3, that is pure conjecture.
Wrong.

>it's called random sampling. more than gould has done.
It's insufficient and irrelevant to Gould's claims.

>morton had sampling issues but gould claimed more than that which is why he's a hack.
Gould's other claims are largely correct.

[Anonymous No.11694507]

>>11694487
>He has Morton's description of his sampling procedures
and morton wrote in the sampling he biased them to get the outcome he wanted? lmao you're not very good at this.

>That was debunked by Weisberg on 171-172.
how exactly?

>One example does not prove Gould wrong.
lmao, it shows he was wrong here where you're willing to admit.

>It doesn't. See above.
it does.

>Wrong
yes it is. gould did not show shit. he made up some shit that morton may have done but did not show he did because the lazy fart never bothered to actually go and measure the skulls.

>It's insufficient and irrelevant to Gould's claims.
says you. while in reality it shows that gould's claims about morton accidentally manipulating the data does not hold since when we look at the skulls we find they are consistent with morton's findings.

>Gould's other claims are largely correct.
such as?

[Anonymous No.11694517]

This is what passes for proof to Gouldlings:
>So Guise Morton probably put more seed in the white skulls to get his numbers. Just trust me on this alright. I didn't even bother to measure the skulls myself but it's possible and he was a racist so he did do that.
>QED

[Anonymous No.11694525]

>>11694517
>It was all unconscious too, and later scientists managed to be as exactly as unconsciously biased when using different instruments such as scales and calipers
>Im not gonna write a study on this, no, this work is so important im gonna write a popsci book! That'll show 'em

[Anonymous No.11694529]

>>11694305
>Gould's argument was that had Morton not biased his results the means would be the same. So by Lewis et al redoing their procedure they show Gould was wrong.
This is easily disproven by the fact that Lewis repeated the same mistakes Gould pointed out. The only point Gould made that was relevant to the measurements of the skulls themselves was the comparison of the seed method and the shot method. But Lewis only used the shot method so their analysis doesn't tell us anything about the seed method. The rest of Gould's points are about the choice of skulls, confounding factors, and accidental mistakes. Lewis measured the same skulls Morton did and didn't control for confounding factors. So how does repeating the same mistakes Lewis made and getting the same result tell us Gould's points are wrong? It doesn't of course. I am tired of repeating this.

>Normalization is a modern statistical approach that was not available to Morton so your argument is moot.
You don't need normalization to control for confounding factors. You simply need to compare apples to apples. This is not an advanced statistical concept and we already know Morton was well aware of controlling for confounding factors since he did exactly that when he removed certain samples that he thought were not representative of the group.

[Anonymous No.11694534]

>>11694529
Morton was sceptical about the seed method you pleb, he explicitly stated there was too much variance from seed estimates to warrant decent data, so he moved to the lead shot. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.11694537]

>>11694317
>he is moving the goalpost by bringing in normalization.
How?

>gould's point was morton biased the results of those skull volume measurement means. lewis et al thoroughly debunk that by taking a random sample and redoing the calculation.
I've already explained how one is irrelevant to the other.

>if he wants to argue morton's approach was outdated ofc, it's fucking 1840 as you say.
Where did I say it was outdated?

[Anonymous No.11694546]

>>11694341
Morton had histories of each skull.

[Anonymous No.11694553]

>>11694537
Why are you obsessing over mortons data when modern data refutes Gould's points?

[Anonymous No.11694554]

>>11694382
>mismeasurements are true

[Anonymous No.11694565]

>>11694529
>This is easily disproven by the fact that Lewis repeated the same mistakes Gould pointed out.
repeating morton's procedure on a sample was the entire point of the study. can you be any more dense?

>The only point Gould made that was relevant to the measurements of the skulls themselves was the comparison of the seed method and the shot method.
something that lewis et al were addressing if you bothered to read.

>But Lewis only used the shot method so their analysis doesn't tell us anything about the seed method.
see:
wrong, they did:
> For Morton's 1839 seed-based measurements, Gould claims that Morton's Native American average capacity is artificially depressed by his inappropriate use of a straight mean (taking the average of each individual specimen in the entire sample) rather than a grouped mean (first taking the average of each Native American population subsample, then calculating the mean of those means), since the former is sensitive to differences in sample sizes between “large headed” populations and “small headed” populations. In fact, the grouped mean for Morton's Native American dataset is 79.9 in3, almost identical to the straight mean of 80.2 in3 (Dataset S3).

>Lewis measured the same skulls Morton did and didn't control for confounding factors.
yeah they were just looking at the means gould claimed were wrong. that was the whole point of the study.

>So how does repeating the same mistakes Lewis made and getting the same result tell us Gould's points are wrong? It doesn't of course. I am tired of repeating this.
what about the point gould was saying that the means were wrong? why do you consistently omit that. lewis et al prove gould was wrong there and that's p big. now as for whether or not these weren't accounted for that should be done in a separate analysis. but we already have evidence gould was wrong with a big thing, the means.

[Anonymous No.11694571]

>>11694529
>You don't need normalization to control for confounding factors. You simply need to compare apples to apples. This is not an advanced statistical concept and we already know Morton was well aware of controlling for confounding factors since he did exactly that when he removed certain samples that he thought were not representative of the group.
so he controlled for confounders but gould said he didn't.

[Anonymous No.11694578]

>>11694393
>not him but that last point: he is saying Gould speculated based on nothing not Morton.
No, he said Gould refused "to do an actual analysis" on Morton's data. Then when I pointed out he did do an anlsysis on Morton's data, he replied by claiming Gould "speculated that morton manipulated his data based on nothing." Of course if you actually read Gould's analysis, you'd see how Morton's own data shows the manipulation. The seed and shot difference is the most well known example. When you compare Morton's results with the inaccurate seed method to his results with the accurate shot method, it shows that the amount of error from the seed method changes for each population in order to match Morton's beliefs. The data of others is irrelevant to this analysis. What most don't seem to understand is that Gould said Morton's shot method data was accurate. So re-measuring the skulls doesn't refute anything Gould actually said.

[Anonymous No.11694579]

>>11694565
He still hasn't proved "unconscious bias" is the same for so many scientists using so many different instruments. Or that it even existed.

[Anonymous No.11694587]

>>11694579
i think unconscious bias is a real thing, everyone has a bias. but gould hasn't demonstrated that it influenced morton's results.

[Anonymous No.11694588]

>>11694571
>Presumes you dont use represetitive sample
NOOO USE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE
>Does actually use a representative sample
NOOO YOU CANT JUST OMIT SKULLS, WHY DOESN'T THIS 1840s MAN UNDERSTAND MODERN STATS.

[Anonymous No.11694603]

>>11694588
did morton know how to properly filter these skulls? was there actual understanding of how sex, age, etc play in skull size at the time? or did he do it solely based on racism? did gould just assume he filtered the skulls based on racism? did gould ever prove that the way morton omitted skulls was based on racism or was that just some speculation he pushed as fact again?

[Anonymous No.11694612]

>>11694578
>So re-measuring the skulls doesn't refute anything
except gould's claims that the means would've been the same if morton didn't fuck around with how he measured them.

[Anonymous No.11694619]

>>11694578
>you'd see how Morton's own data shows the manipulation.
so did gould go through the decisions morton made in how he filtered the skulls out or did he just speculate morton did so based on racism?

[Anonymous No.11694632]

>>11694298
>>11694203
>>11693539
>>11692822
This is a science board not your idiot box, p*l

[Anonymous No.11694815]

>>11694603
>did gould just assume he filtered the skulls based on racism?
Yes

[Anonymous No.11694863]

>>11694395
>you mean here?: >>11694283
No. >>11694224

>morotn made errors no shit, it's fucking 1840.
So is it "reality" or not?

Gould's whole point is that Morton manipulated the skull measurement results in a number of ways to get differences when there weren't any.
Incorrect. See >>11694224

>that's exactly what this is about
No, it's actually about the fact that no conclusion can be drawn from the skulls because they are not representative samples of anything.

>weisberg doesn't refute shit.
Not an argument. Did you even read Weisberg or are you lying again?

>then the re-measurement would show the means are the same
No. Gould said from the start that the lead shot measurements are accurate, so redoing them is pointless. Get it through your thick skull. No matter how much you repeat this non sequitur, it remains irrelevant.

>yes, and gould attacking him is as petty for making such a big deal out of nothing.
Gould isn't even "attacking" him. He praises Morton for publishing lots of information about his procedure and says all scientists should be like Morton. He simply uses Morton as an example of unconscious bias affecting results. Morton is a good example specifically because so much information about his procedure is available. Get your head out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.11694875]

>>11694400
See >>11694224

>>11694401
>Well you'd have to prove the unconscious part
If it was conscious why did Morton strive to make all of his procedures public instead of hiding his manipulation? Why did he correct the seed method by using the lead shot method instead?

>So why do you get so uppety when people say the lead shot studies are reproducible?
I don't, it's irrelevant.

>>11694409
See >>11694224

[Anonymous No.11694881]

>>11694431
>has there ever been an analysis on the skulls to show they varied by age and sex in a way that it would cause the artifacts?
Yes, Gould did so.

>did he try asking for clarification?
Do you understand what a rhetorical question is?

[Anonymous No.11694897]

>>11694462
>You cannot refute the modern data, so you attempt to "debunk" some guys work from the 1840s, in the hope wet brains will believe theres some big conspiracy behind the modern data.
I really don't understand why you have such a feverish imagination when you could just read Gould and see for yourself what he is saying. The point is not to "debunk" Morton, it's to show how unconscious bias can affect science.

[Anonymous No.11694930]

>>11694507
>and morton wrote in the sampling he biased them to get the outcome he wanted?
Do you really think being obtuse is an argument? He says which samples he included and which he didn't. This can be compared for different populations to see whether the procedure was consistent. It wasn't. See the Weisberg paper.

>how exactly?
You'll just have to read it to find out.

>lmao, it shows he was wrong here where you're willing to admit.
Huh? I never said Gould was correct about everything.

>it does.
Not an argument.

>yes it is. gould did not show shit. he made up some shit that morton may have done but did not show he did
Like what? Give an example.

>says you. while in reality it shows that gould's claims about morton accidentally manipulating the data does not hold since when we look at the skulls we find they are consistent with morton's findings.
As I've already explained several times, none of Gould's criticisms imply that re-measuring the skulls will give you different results, unless you use the seed method that Morton initially used. But Lewis did not use that method. The rest of Gould's points are about how the skulls were selected, the failure to control for confounding factors, and accidental errors. Please explain how re-measurement of the skulls is relevant to any of these.

>such as?
See >>11694224

>>11694517
It's not a matter of trust, you can measure it directly since Morton himself realized the seed method had too much variance and switched to lead shot. So we can compare the inaccurate method to the accurate method. When you do that, you see that the errors caused by the seed method are different for each population, and the different errors have the effect of reinforcing 19th century racial bias.

[Anonymous No.11694943]

>>11694534
>Morton was sceptical about the seed method you pleb
Where did I say he wasn't? Learn how to read.

[Anonymous No.11694947]

>>11694553
>Why are you obsessing over mortons data
I'm not.

>when modern data refutes Gould's points?
Which points?

[Anonymous No.11694948]

>>11694587
So you're saying Morton was consciously biased? Because Lewis fails to refute the four categories of bias Gould pointed out and no one else has either.

[Anonymous No.11694961]

>>11694863
>So is it "reality" or not?
that gould was debunked, yes that is reality. he was nothing evo bio whose only real scientific accomplishment was punctuated equilibrium, which is really an obvious observation that was mentioned many times before. all him and whats his face did was put a name to it and act like they discovered something new.

>Incorrect. See >>11694224
>1. Morton often chose to include or delete large subsamples within racial groups in order to match group averages with prior expectations
and the evidence for this is?

>2. Morton used seed that would be arbitrarily packed into the skull to measure volume. Measurements of the same skulls with more accurate lead shot showed the seed method resulted in systematic underestimation of non-white skulls.
that was debunked here: >>11693962

>3. Morton failed to control for confounding factors such as age, gender and height.
and the evidence for that is?

>4. Morton's accidental miscalculations and omissions systematically increased white skull volume or decreased non-white skull volume
that was debunked here:>>11693965

>Did you even read Weisberg or are you lying again?
i never claimed to read your gay philosophy major's screeching. just that know he has nothing. because lewis's finding regarding the means cannot be debunked by some screeching.

>Gould said from the start that the lead shot measurements are accurate, so redoing them is pointless.
[citation needed]

>and says all scientists should be like Morton.
so someone who according to Gould is at the mercy of their biases? no surprise gould would endorse that, practically his mo.

>He simply uses Morton as an example of unconscious bias affecting results.
meanwhile he has no evidence for that as this study here shows: >>11693536

>Get your head out of your ass.
pottery.

>>11694881
>Yes, Gould did so.
how if gould never actually analyzed the skulls?

>Do you understand what a rhetorical question is?
but did he try asking for clarification?

[Anonymous No.11694967]

>>11694930
>He says which samples he included and which he didn't.
and he expressly said he picked the skulls to make nonwhites look dumb?

>This can be compared for different populations to see whether the procedure was consistent.
you mean like when they compared the results of an anti-racist and found they got similar figures as morton?
>>11693536
so do racists and anti-racists have the same bias now?

>It wasn't. See the Weisberg paper.
nah, i'd rather make you explain it to me because i have better shit to do than read some liberal art's majors screechings. so greentext it for me or you have nothing.

>You'll just have to read it to find out.
you made the claim here, you should be able to explain it.

>Like what? Give an example.
p much everything he wrote was conjecture. he never proved had morton been "unbiased" there would be different results to what he got. he should show that morton had errors in his sampling rather than saying he suspected them as proof.

>As I've already explained several times, none of Gould's criticisms imply that re-measuring the skulls will give you different results, unless you use the seed method that Morton initially used.
so then he had nothing. just screeching about bias where there may not have been any.

>The rest of Gould's points are about how the skulls were selected, the failure to control for confounding factors, and accidental errors.
and did he prove with his random sampling of skulls from that period there would be no mean differences? no he just assumed morton picked skulls to prove his crazy racist beliefs.

>Please explain how re-measurement of the skulls is relevant to any of these.
it shows morton didn't fudge his numbers when packing in the shot. something i do remember gould saying.

>It's not a matter of trust,... and the different errors have the effect of reinforcing 19th century racial bias.
debunked here: >>11693962

[Anonymous No.11694977]

>>11694948
nope, i'm saying gould has nothing but conjecture and assertions he never proves those 4 points. what gould would need to do to substantiate his claims is take skulls from that time period by random sampling, filter out by age and sex then measure their volumes. if the means are equal then he'd have a point, if they weren't he has nothing but meaningless assertions.

[Anonymous No.11694994]

>>11694565
>repeating morton's procedure on a sample was the entire point of the study.
Yes, and as I've explained several times, repeating Morton's procedure does nothing to refute Gould's points. Can you be any more dense? If I tell you that a focus group of teenagers is not a representative sample for what movies the general population likes, do you refute that by doing another focus group of teenagers and getting the same result? If I told you one of the methods you used to do focus groups had an error in it, would doing a focus group according to a different method and getting a different result refute that? That is what Lewis did.

>something that lewis et al were addressing if you bothered to read.
I read the paper, they didn't counter Gould's point. Funny considering you refuse to read.

>wrong, they did:
> For Morton's 1839 seed-based measurements, Gould claims that Morton's Native American average capacity is artificially depressed by his inappropriate use of a straight mean (taking the average of each individual specimen in the entire sample) rather than a grouped mean (first taking the average of each Native American population subsample, then calculating the mean of those means), since the former is sensitive to differences in sample sizes between “large headed” populations and “small headed” populations. In fact, the grouped mean for Morton's Native American dataset is 79.9 in3, almost identical to the straight mean of 80.2 in3 (Dataset S3).
Nowhere does this say Lewis replicated the seed measurements. If you actually read your own source, you would see they didn't. It doesn't even address the errors in the seed method, it's talking about an error in averaging. If you can't even understand your own source, just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.11695008]

>>11694565
>yeah they were just looking at the means gould claimed were wrong. that was the whole point of the study.
If they replicated the errors that Gould pointed out then getting the same answer as Morton still means they're wrong. You keep saying this study proved Gould wrong without actually mentioning Gould's points. If you did, you would see that the study is irrelevant.

>what about the point gould was saying that the means were wrong?
Which point? The one about averages? They proved that Gould was right, but it's a small error. Gould's main points are summarized here >>11694224
and none of them are about averaging. I guess you could say the averaging error would be included in point 4, but it is not the totality of point 4.

>why do you consistently omit that.
I didn't, it's part of point 4.

>lewis et al prove gould was wrong there and that's p big.
They proved him right on that, they just said it's a small error.

>but we already have evidence gould was wrong with a big thing, the means.
It's the exact opposite, he was right about a small error. Gould's "big things" are in the list I gave you.

[Anonymous No.11695015]

>>11694571
>so he controlled for confounders but gould said he didn't.
Gould said he didn't confound for factors like age, height and gender. That doesn't mean he didn't confound for any confounding factor.

>>11694588
>>Presumes you dont use represetitive sample
Not presumed, it's shown by Morton's own description of his procedures.

>>Does actually use a representative sample
Controlling for certain factors doesn't make your sample representative.

[Anonymous No.11695037]

>>11694994
>repeating Morton's procedure does nothing to refute Gould's points.
except his point about the means.

>If I tell you that a focus group of teenagers is not a representative sample for what movies the general population likes, do you refute that by doing another focus group of teenagers and getting the same result?
now prove morton did that.

>do you refute that by doing another focus group of teenagers and getting the same result?
it wasn't another group of teenagers. you made a point there was an error with measuring the first so i'd go back to check that. and if the discussion is about how the teenagers were measured that's where i'd start.

>I read the paper, they didn't counter Gould's point. Funny considering you refuse to read.
they clearly do. hence their paper.

>Nowhere does this say Lewis replicated the seed measurements.
they address it, see:
>In fact, the grouped mean for Morton's Native American dataset is 79.9 in3, almost identical to the straight mean of 80.2 in3 (Dataset S3).

>>11695008
>If they replicated the errors that Gould pointed out then getting the same answer as Morton still means they're wrong.
except the part where gould said their means would be the same.

>You keep saying this study proved Gould wrong without actually mentioning Gould's points.
i do, you just don't want to admit your precious boomer had some shit points.

>Which point? The one about averages? They proved that Gould was right, but it's a small error.
except they find differences in means where gould said there wouldn't be. how high are you?

>I didn't, it's part of point 4.
which was debunked.

>They proved him right on that, they just said it's a small error.
lmao nope.

>It's the exact opposite, he was right about a small error. Gould's "big things" are in the list I gave you.
debunked

>>11695015
>Gould said he didn't confound for factors like age, height and gender.
and what evidence does he show for that? none.

[Anonymous No.11695038]

>>11694612
>except gould's claims that the means would've been the same if morton didn't fuck around with how he measured them.
What Gould considered "fucking around" with them was repeated by Lewis since they simply re-measured the same samples instead of measuring a representative sample and controlling for confounding factors. So the re-measurement also fails to show that skulls would not be equal if you did "fuck around." If it's claimed a procedure has errors, then repeating the procedure and getting the same result as you did before does not show the errors don't exist. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

[Anonymous No.11695053]

>>11695038
>What Gould considered "fucking around" with them
no he did have passages about how morton forced more shot into the shot and seed for white skulls than black ones. i distinctly remember reading that.

>So the re-measurement also fails to show that skulls would not be equal if you did "fuck around."
so why didn't gould show morton fucked around that way instead just asserted it without evidence?

[Anonymous No.11695076]

If Gould was worth his salt what he would've done is looked at the skulls from that time period. Checked the distributions of age and sex. Measured their volumes. Calculated the means. If they were the same as he asserted then he would have a leg to stand on for his assertions of bias. Instead the crusty boomer couldn't get off his armchair and just blabbered away in an overly verbose 400+ page novel. Worthless.

[Anonymous No.11695077]

>>11694603
>was there actual understanding of how sex, age, etc play in skull size at the time?
Huh? You don't need to understand their effect to see that they have an effect. To say that someone who devoted most of their time to collecting and studying skulls would not see female skulls are smaller than male skulls is idiotic.

>did gould just assume he filtered the skulls based on racism?
No, Gould found that Morton's errors in various different procedures all had the same net effect of confirming his a priori beliefs. When errors compound in one direction, this is called a bias. This is not an assumption, it's an observation. The only question then is whether this bias is the result of conscious action or unconscious action. Gould concluded, based on Morton's transparent behavior, that the bias was unconscious.

[Anonymous No.11695082]

>>11694619
>so did gould go through the decisions morton made in how he filtered the skulls out or did he just speculate morton did so based on racism?
See >>11695077

[Anonymous No.11695090]

>>11695077
>To say that someone who devoted most of their time to collecting and studying skulls would not see female skulls are smaller than male skulls is idiotic.
so now prove that he didn't filter them accordingly.

>Gould found that Morton's errors in various different procedures all had the same net effect of confirming his a priori beliefs.
what proof does gould have that those are errors?

> When errors compound in one direction, this is called a bias.
yes, but prove those are errors. that is the assertion.

>This is not an assumption, it's an observation.
the assumption is that he made errors like this. in fact the errors he made often would've made his point stronger. see: >>11693962
>>11693965

[Anonymous No.11695103]

>>11695090
>Of all the accusations Gould leveled against Morton, the authors of this study found only two to be substantiated. First, there were several errors in the summary table of Morton’s final catalog published in 1849. However, counter to Gould’s arguments, the authors found that had Morton not made these errors, the numbers would have actually supported his presumed bias better than the published numbers did.
> the numbers would have actually supported his presumed bias better than the published numbers did.

sure sounds like racist bias.

[Anonymous No.11695160]

>>11694961
>that gould was debunked, yes that is reality.
You're avoiding the question, were Lewis and Morton's faulty measurements representative of "reality" or not?

>and the evidence for this is?
Morton's own description of his procedure.

>that was debunked here: >>11693962
That was debunked by Weisberg on page 171-172

>and the evidence for that is?
Morton's own description of his procedure.

>that was debunked here:>>11693965
They present one example of a typographical error and then say the authors (Lewis et al) could substantiate only two errors. As I've already explained, this is because Lewis fails to address all of Gould's main points.

>i never claimed to read your gay philosophy major's screeching.
So you're lying when you made a claim about Weisberg. Thanks for admitting that.

>[citation needed]
Gould, Stephen J., The Mismeasure of Man, page 53

>so someone who according to Gould is at the mercy of their biases?
Everyone is, that's Gould's point.

>meanwhile he has no evidence for that as this study here shows: >>11693536
Funny how the study you cite refutes the point you made earlier:
"While Lewis and colleagues and Michael showed the accuracy of Morton’s lead shot measurements, Gould assumed the accuracy of the shot ICs [58]. (“I will assume, as Morton contends, that measurements with shot were objective and invariably repeatable to within 1 in3” [36].)"

[Anonymous No.11695181]

>>11695160
>Morton's own description of his procedure.
and he wrote that he picked the skulls to make white skulls look big?

>That was debunked by Weisberg on page 171-172
what did he say?

>Morton's own description of his procedure.
and he wrote he didn't account for these confounders?

>As I've already explained, this is because Lewis fails to address all of Gould's main points.
gould failed to address his own points.

>So you're lying when you made a claim about Weisberg. Thanks for admitting that.
nope, i explained to you why weisberg can have nothing on lewis unless he re-measured the skulls.

>Gould, Stephen J., The Mismeasure of Man, page 53
nothing there on that page about it.

>Everyone is, that's Gould's point.
yet he can't check his own.

>While Lewis and colleagues and Michael showed the accuracy of Morton’s lead shot measurements, Gould assumed the accuracy of the shot ICs [58]. (“I will assume, as Morton contends, that measurements with shot were objective and invariably repeatable to within 1 in3” [36].)"
and where does gould say that? wasn't on page 53.

[Anonymous No.11695187]

>>11695181
page 5:
the social ideals or the subjective preferences of the critics than on any first-hand examination of the evidence supporting the opposite view" (in Conway, 1959, p. 15). Since biological determinism possesses such evident utility for groups in power, one might be excused for suspecting that it also arises in a political context, despite the denials quoted above. After all, if the status quo is an extension of nature, then any major change, if possible at all, must inflict an enormous cost—psychological for individuals, or economic for society—in forcing people into unnatural arrangements. In his epochal book, An American Dilemma (1944), Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal discussed the thrust of biological and medical arguments about human nature: "They have been associated in America, as in the rest of the world, with conservative and even reactionary ideologies. Under their long hegemony, there has been a tendency to assume biological causation without question, and to accept social explanations only under the duress of a siege of irresistible evidence. In political questions, this tendency favored a do-nothing policy." Or, as Condorcet said more succinctly a long time ago: they "make nature herself an accomplice in the crime of political inequality." This book seeks to demonstrate both the scientific weaknesses and political contexts of determinist arguments.

[Anonymous No.11695189]

>>11694182
yes, yes, you keep peddling this but it's irrelevant. the topic is whether gould lied about morton due to his leftist biases or not.

[Anonymous No.11695192]

>>11695187
cont
Even so, I do not intend to contrast evil determinists who stray from the path of scientific objectivity with enlightened antideterminists who approach data with an open mind and therefore see truth. Rather, I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is. Among scientists, few conscious ideologues have entered these debates on either side. Scientists needn't become explicit apologists for their class or culture in order to reflect these pervasive aspects of life. My message is not that biological determinists were bad scientists or even that they were always wrong. Rather, I believe that science must be understood as a social phenomenon, a gutsy, human enterprise, not the work of robots programed to collect pure information. I also present this view as an upbeat for science, not as a gloomy epitaph for a noble hope sacrificed on the altar of human limitations. Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity.


nothing but verbose boomer gibbering.

[Anonymous No.11695198]

>>11695181
page 53:
the social ideals or the subjective preferences of the critics than on any first-hand examination of the evidence supporting the opposite view" (in Conway, 1959, p. 15). Since biological determinism possesses such evident utility for groups in power, one might be excused for suspecting that it also arises in a political context, despite the denials quoted above. After all, if the status quo is an extension of nature, then any major change, if possible at all, must inflict an enormous cost—psychological for individuals, or economic for society—in forcing people into unnatural arrangements. In his epochal book, An American Dilemma (1944), Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal discussed the thrust of biological and medical arguments about human nature: "They have been associated in America, as in the rest of the world, with conservative and even reactionary ideologies. Under their long hegemony, there has been a tendency to assume biological causation without question, and to accept social explanations only under the duress of a siege of irresistible evidence. In political questions, this tendency favored a do-nothing policy." Or, as Condorcet said more succinctly a long time ago: they "make nature herself an accomplice in the crime of political inequality." This book seeks to demonstrate both the scientific weaknesses and political contexts of determinist arguments.

[Anonymous No.11695200]

>>11695198
cont
Even so, I do not intend to contrast evil determinists who stray from the path of scientific objectivity with enlightened antideterminists who approach data with an open mind and therefore see truth. Rather, I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is. Among scientists, few conscious ideologues have entered these debates on either side. Scientists needn't become explicit apologists for their class or culture in order to reflect these pervasive aspects of life. My message is not that biological determinists were bad scientists or even that they were always wrong. Rather, I believe that science must be understood as a social phenomenon, a gutsy, human enterprise, not the work of robots programed to collect pure information. I also present this view as an upbeat for science, not as a gloomy epitaph for a noble hope sacrificed on the altar of human limitations. Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity.


nothing but verbose boomer noises.

[Anonymous No.11695217]

>>11695189
he had no basis for anything he said. he just made assertions about morton without measuring any skulls from that time period to show there would be equal means in volume with his supposed corrections. just sat on his crusty boomer ass and screeched from his armchair. sad like his entire career which was based on nothing but naming an observation that was mentioned dozens of times before him and steeling credit for it. the ifuckinglovescience crowd's greatest hack.

[Anonymous No.11695218]

>>11695038
>Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
because he's a troll who wants to see how much effort are you willing to put into turning around his pretend-obtuseness.

[Anonymous No.11695250]

>>11692681
Eldredge and Gould have both frankly acknowledged that without punctuated equilibria they would have had rather quiet, undistinguished careers, rather than becoming (to different extents) prominent public intellectuals with many scientific and popular accolades. Without a foil, however, punctuated equilibria had no teeth: indeed, one of the many criticisms of the theory that evolution proceeds through lengthy periods of morphological stasis, infrequently “punctuated” by bursts of rapid speciation, is that it was either unoriginal (having been anticipated by Simpson, Mayr, or other previous thinkers) or uncontroversial (for the stated reason that it did not require any novel evolutionary mechanisms) or both (Cain 2009; Sepkoski 2009).

[Anonymous No.11696009]

>>11693013
Wait, are you telling me that high IQ people are just schizo sheeple (despite this usually being an oxymoron)?

[Anonymous No.11696015]

Anyone who thinks human intelligence, in all of its depth can be accurately described by a 2 or 3 digit number has already exhibited the limits of their intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11696026]

>>11693306
Diamond actually did a really fascinating anaysis of campfire numbers for a native american tribe the Anasazi valley indians and how the population expanded with time based on the number of cook fires, often in bursts as more groups entered the valley, then the population completely crashed

[Anonymous No.11696049]

>>11696009
Yes. You could indeed say that the ebove puts you on the schizophrenia spectrum. (Oversensitive pattern seeking, fragmented thinking, tunnel vision, no capacity to spot incongruencies, extreme confirmation bias) while the bottom pushes you towards the autism spectrum (undersensitive to non-redundant patterns; extreme holism (despite the popular idea of autism being obsessed with detail, all the tests suggest the opposite, autists may be merely more likely to notice details others miss because of the extremely parallel processing), instant visual search, unable to bear incongruency; no confirmation, possible disconfirmation bias)

[Anonymous No.11696051]

>>11696009
Yes. You could indeed say that too much of the above puts you on the schizophrenia spectrum. (Oversensitive pattern seeking, fragmented thinking, tunnel vision, no capacity to spot incongruencies, extreme confirmation bias) while the bottom pushes you towards the autism spectrum (undersensitive to non-redundant patterns; extreme holism (despite the popular idea of autists being obsessed with detail, all the tests suggest the opposite, autists may be merely more likely to notice details others miss because of the extremely parallel processing), instant visual search, unable to bear incongruency; no confirmation, possible disconfirmation bias)

[Anonymous No.11696113]

>>11696026
>>11696051
Both may lead paradoxicaly to similar alienation. Schizophrenics have unusual beliefs because they don't want their personal beliefs to be disturbed by outside factors, while autists may reject conventional beliefs as unjustified and form their own in replacement. Either results in the superficially similar poor adjustment.

[Anonymous No.11696122]

since there a biologists in this thread, how fucked are we?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4BVQ_eSaQs

[Anonymous No.11696881]

>>11694632
Go choke to death on some baby foreskin, Goldblatt.

[Anonymous No.11696915]

>>11692822
It's worse than that. It's not just his mother.

https://www.famousscientists.org/stephen-jay-gould/

> Stephen Jay Gould's father, Leonard Gould, was a court stenographer. His mother, Eleanor Rosenberg, was an artist. Both were Jewish by ancestry. Leonard was a Marxist.

> Stephen’s parents owned an English translation of Adolf Hitler’s notorious book Mein Kampf. As a child, Stephen would eye this red book on his parents’ bookshelves warily, and sometimes, for the thrill of it, take it down and handle it – it felt as if he were touching Evil.

>>11692983
Of course he was. They all are.