/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15213069]

Thoughts on Edward Dutton?

[Anonymous No.15213080]

one of his books is basically a biography of Nikola Tesla

[Anonymous No.15213084]

>>15213069
He shilled for the vax

[Anonymous No.15213116]

>>15213069
He fits his niche of studying HBD and dysgenics quite nicely. Though he still unironically believes in the Holocaust for instance.

[Anonymous No.15213120]

>>15213084
Did he shill or just mention he got it?
I know he had that hack dugin on

[Anonymous No.15213122]

Woodely >>> Dutton

But Michael seems to be having more fun studying parrot behaviour and not having to deal with leftists out to destroy him.

[Anonymous No.15213273]

>>15213084
>>15213120
No, he didn't. He took it but never shilled for it.

[Anonymous No.15213303]

>>15213069
Edward Dutton, also known as "The Jolly Heretic," is a controversial figure who is often associated with evolutionary psychology and controversial views on topics such as race and intelligence. He has published books and articles on these topics, as well as on religion, personality, and other areas.

It's important to note that many of Dutton's views are not widely accepted by the scientific community, and some have been criticized as being based on flawed or biased interpretations of research. Some of his claims about race and intelligence, for example, have been debunked by experts in the field of psychology.

Furthermore, Dutton's writing and public statements have been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and far-right ideologies. Some of his views have been labeled as racist or discriminatory by critics.

It's important to approach Dutton's work with a critical eye and to consider alternative perspectives and evidence. It's also important to recognize that controversial figures like Dutton can have a significant impact on public discourse and should be engaged with thoughtfully and responsibly.

[Anonymous No.15213313]

>>15213303

ChatGPT makes 4chan posts now... interesting

[Anonymous No.15214066]

>>15213069
sounds like he's a shithead
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Edward_Dutton

[Anonymous No.15214273]

I never thought I would live to see the day someone would seriously post a rationalwiki article on this site. That in combination with being banned for pic rel tells me this board is pozzed and might as well be incorporated into https://www.reddit.com/r/sci

[Anonymous No.15214279]

>>15214273
It could be that scientific types are more intelligent and tend to be left-leaning in their political views... You can always go back to /pol/ y'know, I'm tired of arguing with morons.

[Anonymous No.15214286]

>>15214273
anon they are just too driven by their agenda to care about what is true.

[Anonymous No.15214296]

>>15214066
He answered to it.
https://edwarddutton.com/index.php/oh-my-god-your-ratwiki-page/

[Anonymous No.15214304]

>>15214066
>>15214279
>>15214286
Please tell me these are all just one person. Holy fuck has /sci/ really come to this?

[Anonymous No.15214307]

>>15213069
Does he live in prison? That room looks bleak.

[Anonymous No.15214335]

>>15214304
how would the third one (me) be the same as the others.
did you read the post. what is the matter with you.

[Anonymous No.15214356]

>>15214335
You have never heard of samefagging? How new are you?

[Anonymous No.15214451]

>>15214356
why would people with opposite opinions be a samefag.

[Anonymous No.15214455]

>>15214451
You were right. Misread

[Anonymous No.15214534]

>>15214304
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.15216061]

>>15214304
>>>15214066
>>>15214279
These two are obviously the same person, yes. He actually sticks out on other threads as well for his awful takes and his misuse of punctuation.

And the actual number of real shitlibs on /sci/ is very low. It takes certain kind of narcissim to be shitlib, so anonymity does not suit them well. Jannies are of course infinitely more likely to be cum-guzzling leftists, since it gives them a tiny bit of power.

[Attention whoring black kid No.15216064]

>>15213069
Wowza

[Anonymous No.15216184]

>>15213069
He, along with other crackpots like Noah Carl and Emil Kirkegaard, are terrible, date illiterate 'scientists who make the field look bad. Yes, certain races might be less intelligent right now, but that's because of systemic racism and other nurture effects.

[Anonymous No.15216219]

>>15214296
>“Anti-Semite”
>Would such a person select a Rabbi as his PhD supervisor and interview numerous Jewish people on his show including a West Bank Settler Zionist Rabbi, Prof. Amy Wax, Prof. Paul Gottfried, Ilana Mercer, Curtis Yarvin and Ron Unz?

unsubscribed

[Anonymous No.15216540]

>>15216061
you're wrong schizo

[In the know No.15216560]

>>15214307
Worse, he's in Finland.

[Anonymous No.15216625]

Dutton's degree isn't in the areas he mostly discusses, but I find that he's equally likely to say something interesting as he is to say nonsense. He's a little too attached to chan/meme language, sorta like a professor version of Luke Smith, but far less annoying.

I give Dutton credit for pretty much being the only discussion online regarding the effect of women taking over academia. Faculty hiring is slower to change, but in the last decade, college admins and boards of trustees have very rapidly become very female. And we are seeing the effects on decision quality, risk-taking, etc. Senior men in the faculty see the writing on the wall and are fleeing for the exits.

[Anonymous No.15217837]

>>15216184
>Yes, certain races might be less intelligent right now, but that's because of systemic racism
Kek. Isn't it incredible that 'youths' miraculously seem to behave exactly the same everywhere they're allowed to emigrate? It must be that global network of systemic racists I keep hearing about.

[Anonymous No.15217898]

>>15216625
>I give Dutton credit for pretty much being the only discussion online regarding the effect of women taking over academia
I must have missed that, could you post an example?

[Anonymous No.15218344]

>>15217837
>white people are so racist that wherever POC are found they are being oppressed
Not really helping your case

[Anonymous No.15218379]

>>15218344
I know you're either trolling or a redditor NPC. If it is the latter case I want to peek into the mind of one.
So now explain Japan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa, USA, UK, Brazil, Sweden and the consistent universality of outcomes. By which I mean the consistent pattern of violent crime, economic performance, academic performance, IQ, poverty etc.; you have the high performing, intelligent, clean, lawful Europeans and East Asians, and the low performing, dumb, dirty, violent Sub-Saharan Africans and browns (e.g. when applicable Arabs, natives, Hispanics). Note the uniqueness of each of their histories, colonial or not. As well as the uniqueness of demographics.

[Anonymous No.15218392]

>>15216184
>systemic racism and other nurture effects
Ah yes, those famous nurture effects that exist everywhere on earth, with or without white people, before and after colonialism, and that only affect minority groups with low polygenic intelligence scores.

[Anonymous No.15218398]

>>15214066
>citing RationalWIki unironically

[Anonymous No.15218407]

>>15213069
His book on Islam as dysgenic-but-not-too-dysgenic was good. That's the only book I got from him.
>>15213303
>debooooonk!! muh experts!
Official psychology has no relationship with intelligence-metrics, at least not in the West anymore.

[Anonymous No.15218423]

>>15214304
come to what? this board has always been fucking retarded and so are you.

[Anonymous No.15218441]

>>15218392
>psychometrics is genetics

rw iq on display

[Anonymous No.15218455]

>>15218441
He is talking about something called GWAS - genome wide association studies. Essentially what they do is take 1 million people (control for race i.e. subspecies), and see what genes are associated with intelligence (or proxies such as educational attainment and IQ).
The gene frequencies in this as you would expect; Europeans, East Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews have a high frequency of genes correlated with intelligence. Other races have shitty and low frequencies, specially blacks.

[Anonymous No.15218541]

>>15218455
>The gene frequencies in this as you would expect

i am void of any expectations, have any source for this?

[Anonymous No.15218561]

>>15218441
>rw iq on display
It is, just not in the way you think. Leftism can only exist through a midwit understanding of any particular subject

[Anonymous No.15218579]

>>15218541
I will give you one, there are others find them youself
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/5/htm
And yes you did have expections, even if you insist on lying to yourself.

[Anonymous No.15218586]

>>15218579
>typos
phonefagging mb

[Anonymous No.15218627]

>>15218379
>>15218455
>>15218579
What respectable scientiat or paper has actually proven that races aren't equal?

[Anonymous No.15218645]

>>15218627
What do you mean by equal? You certainly don't mean height or skull structure or bone density or eye color or hair color or muscle composition or disease susceptibility etc.

[Anonymous No.15218651]

>>15218645
I mean intelligence and the other things insane right wingers say vary by race due to non-societal/environmental factors

[Anonymous No.15218654]

>>15218651
>insane right wingers
That's a weird way to spell biologists but w/e

[Anonymous No.15218663]

>>15218654
Right wing activism != biology. I'm guessing that you also believe sex and gender are the same thing?

[Anonymous No.15218665]

>>15218579
>>15218561
>you don't assume what I think therefore you can only be lying to yourself

rw reasoning and iq on display

and idk if you even read this study but just because you found some arbitrary genetic loci that correlates with an already contentious "proxy for intelligence" does not actually definitively prove that "intelligence" IN ITSELF is a biological / completely biologically deterministic phenomenon, this is literally just statistical correlation between psychometric and some biometric data. Saying "average heights of genetic groups are correlated with g-factor" says nothing about biologically inheritance and deterministic it is present with other factors you simply can not hand wave away because they don't support your political narrative.

the reason why I didn't expect anything in the first place was because I was already skeptical of the claims and means of the study itself and wanted to see the methods it applied.

[Anonymous No.15218671]

>>15218651
So genetic data>>15218579, history (pic)>>15218379, test results (pic)>>15218579 including every single IQ study ever done even when controlling for SES, combined with the fact it is a statistical impossibility that populations seperated for thousands of years under wildly different evolutionary pressures would evolve the same exact mental abilities and proclivities, is not enough? What more do you want?
You like to out source your thinking huh? Well take Dr. James Clark Watson.

[Anonymous No.15218678]

>>15218671
That should read Dewey not Clark.

[Anonymous No.15218697]

>>15218654
>my political agenda has a monopoly on a scientific field because contentious study shows some correlation between arbitrary metrics and genes

buddy if anything this thread has only proven that rwers are literally even more sophistical and delusional than I thought prior to when I went into it

[Anonymous No.15218753]

>>15218665
Of course intelligence is biological because animals are biological beings you total and absolute midwit.
>contentious "proxy for intelligence"
It is not contentious. IQ is the single best metric to ever come out of psychology. It predicts school performance, job performance, SAT, grades, delayed gratification, and just about everything related to intelligence better than anything else (yes, I am better off knowing your IQ score than ANYTHING less to predict job performance, and it becomes better the more cognitively demanding the field is).
By the way many of those genes found are known to directly impact the brain (e.g. myelin sheath production).
But anyways, the redditor NPC mind works exactly as one would think. Provides nothing, no argument, evidence, reasoning, nothing. Just spams source and types out essays with absolutely zero substance that amounts to muh correlation does not equal causation.
Go back.
Heil Hitler.

[Anonymous No.15218756]

>>15213303
>It's important to note that many of Dutton's views are not widely accepted by the scientific community, and some have been criticized as being based
no, they are just outright based

[Anonymous No.15218777]

Fag

[Anonymous No.15218781]

>>15214273
>pic
Anon you're a retard. That was a ban well deserved.

[Anonymous No.15218783]

>>15214304
Go cry about it in your safe space poltard.

[Anonymous No.15219251]

>>15218697
>rwers
What the hell does that mean?

[Anonymous No.15219257]

>>15218665
>it is present with other factors you simply can not hand wave away because they don't support your political narrative.
You seem to be the one doing that.

[Anonymous No.15219276]

>>15218665
What are these other factors? Could you please provide studies that lead you to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.15219404]

>>15219257
>exposes a lapse in his reasoning and how it fails to prove that "intelligence" is a purely genetic phenomenon
>reasoning fallacies have a secret political agenda

>>15218753
Okay since you lack the reading comprehension to understand whats being explicated here I'll spell it out for you. No one is claiming there isn't a "biological" component to "intelligence" you fucking moron, so drop the useless non-sequitor. The contention comes in where retards like you can't realize that psychometrics != genetics i.e able to identify genetic loci in the genome for "intelligence" (in the sense that if one wanted to apply crispr gene editing technologies to control and manipulate these objects it would be efficient and clear). If you can't prove your causation than yes you're just vomiting sophistry and calling it "biology" to shoehorn your retarded political agenda. IQ is contentious because it fails to prove there are specific GENES for intelligence, only that IQ scores correlate with arbitrary genetic loci.

>Heil Hitler.
Not to mention you are so retarded you don't even realize the loose psychometrics you're pointing to as hard data for genetic determinism would lead to reason abt the intellectual inferiority of white people compared to EAsians and Askenazim and therefore lead one to believe Nazism is a cope for fundamental lack of abilities that they can compete on equal footing. So you can go cry abt it in the containment board.

>>15219276
This isn't a "conclusive statement" on my position, I think the debate is a false dichotomy by definition, its just highlighting that there are a billion well documented factors that go into IQ metrics and educational achievement that are social and environmental and thus began to question the status of IQ as a "proxy for intelligence" and even then it still fails to prove that "intelligence is purely genetic / gene deterministic" people are way too invested in their political agendas to realize this or reconcile.

[Anonymous No.15219426]

>>15213069
We will live to see everything he says come true. I have seen many of his videos in detail, specially related to Intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15219430]

Any seething libchud or leftard tranny should just go and see his video on
1. Intelligence
2. Civilisation
3. Spiteful Mutants

[Anonymous No.15219565]

>>15219430
All pseudoscience of course.

[Anonymous No.15219567]

>>15219404
Stop straw manning the hard genetic determinism idea and confront the actual replicated research and evidence on iq. all of which points to the strongly heritable nature of IQ and other behavioural traits.
These traits also correlate within racial and ethnc clusters.

[Anonymous No.15219593]

>>15219567
How about you pay attention and try not moving goalposts. Its not straw manning anything, if you actually read the original implication of the claim it would conflate psychometric with genetics which is obviously retarded. It doesn't prove any "hard" heredity for psychometric results nor does it disprove the effects of environmental and social factors which are numerous. If it was strongly "heritable" in any real sense he would be able to locate genetic loci associated with "intelligence" quite easily which it seems you are still unable to do.

[Anonymous No.15219630]

>>15219593
Because it's a complex highly polygenic trait affected my a vast number of disparate gene systems.

Your type always seem to label others as believing that genetics 100% predicts IQ while the usual estimate is between 60% and 80%.
Anyone actually open to rational honest debate on the topic is already fully aware of this, those opposed to it seem to take a bizarre politicised stance that genetics cannot explain any correlation in IQ.
In their minds everyone has equal brainpower and if some person or group is more successful than others then it must be because of non genetic factors and white privilege.

However the more you equalise environmental factors by giving everyone equal access and resources the more these genetic differences matter because they are then the only source of variation.

[Anonymous No.15219667]

>>15219404
Again an essay that amounts to correlation does not equal causation. Explain what sort of evidence would convince you? Genetic correlates, genetic clusters, history, test results etc. obviously won't do it. And if you can answer questions for example the one posed here>>15218379. Also as he said>>15219567.
>Hitler
When did anyone ever say Europeans had the highest IQ? Hitler certainly didn't.
>>15219593
Intelligence is obviously an extremely complex polygenic traits. And there are already are "genetic loci", namely the SNPs. You obviously misunderstood what GWAS does. In GWAS, they try to find SNPs -- single nucleotide polymorphisms -- that are statistically significantly associated with and explain variation in a the trait in question.
Let me walk you through it
For GWAS on continuous traits like intelligence, first a set of SNPs is sequenced for each person in the study. Each allele is then encoded as a number. For any SNP, there are generally 3 variants. On either chromosome, a SNP is usually one of two nucleotide bases. One of the homozygous alleles is chosen as the reference allele and is given a value of 0. The encoded value becomes the number of alternative alleles the person possesses. The heterozygous genotype receives a value of 1, and the alternative homozygous genotype gets a value of 2. Then you preform linear regression on this. So the model is
[math] \mathrm{Intelligence} = \sum\limits_{i=i}^{n}\beta_i(\mathrm{SNP}_i) + \epsilon [/math]
Where our [math] \mathrm{SNP}_i [/math] take discrete values as explained above. And the error values [math]\epsilon\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)[/math]You find estimates of [math]\beta_i[/math], namely [math]\hat{\beta_i}[/math]. These "weights" are then estimates of how much "intelligence" each [math]\mathrm{SNP}_i [/math] "gives".
In other words, we have now found SPECIFIC locations in the genome that are associated with intelligence. That is as causal as you can reasonably ask for right now.

[Anonymous No.15219671]

>>15219667
Some pics to help you understand

[Anonymous No.15219674]

>>15219667
>>15219671

[Anonymous No.15219706]

>>15213069
skizo

i like listening to his accent though

[Anonymous No.15219708]

>>15213303
>It's important to note that many of Dutton's views are not widely accepted by the scientific community

At this point AI is just A

[Anonymous No.15219996]

>>15219630
No offense, I don't think have the reading comprehensions skill to understand what I'm arguing here. This is literally just straw-manning my deductions and logical implications from the other anons post while introducing a bunch of ethereal political falsehoods and nonsense I was neither arguing for or advocating, as well as implying a bunch of equivocation I never asserted and could not even exist given that I already insinuate that I don't subscribe to the presuppositions of the dichotomy in itself proposed so I'm not even going to address this further. Many people throw around different estimates for how much "genes" account for "intelligence" so again you just reiterate my basic premise for why the genetic determinism IMPLIED in the anons post is already a faulty foreclosure.

>>15219667
The Hitler remark was replying to that one other anon that for some reason thinks that psychometric data is a retarded nonsensical political agenda.

Again I don't think you are understanding what the original contention was about given the implication of the other anon's post was abt and you are arguing past me here on things I never claimed were not true. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, which is why there are contentious "estimates" for how much these genetic loci-SNP's contribute to "intelligence proxy" outcomes to begin with, again, they're not even measuring "INTELLIGENCE" in some strict definition just fuzzy proxies for it, so there is already contention here to begin with. I understand the mathematics they apply and statistical weighting they ascribe, its the tools and measurements and definitions they are building off of which are fundamentally faulty and lead to all these variability and guesstimations. This wasn't even my original claim in the first place btw but just an extra point I thought you should know.

[Anonymous No.15220005]

>>15219996
And previously I asked you to supply evidence to support your statements but you posted nothing.

[Anonymous No.15220079]

>>15219996
I don't know who you think you are replying to but I followed my comment chain and you are the one who started bringing in politics and calling everyone right wing.

[Anonymous No.15220349]

Is he right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMuoyngwyk

[Anonymous No.15220357]

>>15216061
I'm actually a woman.

[Anonymous No.15221024]

This playlist suggests about half of his videos have been hidden...
https://yewtu.be/playlist?list=PLqXUBhlAdvYlytT1nyKIbM4rjIdHPz7sP

[Anonymous No.15222937]

>>15219996
>The Hitler remark was replying to that one other anon
Yeah I know, I am that anon.
The arguments you have presented _seem_ entirely without substance. It amounts to wordplay; if you insist that you can't measure intelligence then there is no discussion to be had.
Also what you're saying with respect to psychometric tests and genetics makes no sense. Clearly your genetics and biology will heavily determine how you do on them.
>correlation does not equal causation
Genuinely the ultimate midwit line. Used as a last line of defense. Technically true, but as Dutton himself explains if one can some up with a reasonable sounding explanation as to how the variables are related then one can reasonably infer causation. And what is more reasonable than groups of humanoids differing in intelligence due to the impossibility of it being otherwise given how evolution works and the time scales in question.
You certainly have not provided an alternative hypothesis to observed differences that are present now, historically, and show up regardless of situation. Other than some obscure "institutional racism" that you cannot prove. We can however, for example, measure how "culturally biased" questions are, and the subspecies gaps are WIDER in the LEAST "culturally" biased questions. We also know, for instance, SAT is not biased against them as their measured SAT actually over-predicts their true performance in say university (with respect to the low intelligence subspecies). If it was biased against them you would expect the opposite.

[Anonymous No.15222977]

When I followed him he was getting small historical details wrong all the time. His reasoning in the early vids was fairly repetitive and simple as well. He has one theory, the spiteful mutant one occasionally supplemented to r/k, and he didn't even invent it. Also he has done many streams with Richard Spencer which is a pretty obvious midwit indicator. Keith Woods is an overrated pseud on this topic as well

>>15213122
pretty much this. But Woodley's papers are such pretentious jargony trash they're practically unreadable and that speaks for itself

[Anonymous No.15222984]

>>15220357
That's the one thing you'll definitely never be.

[Anonymous No.15222993]

>>15222977
>Also he has done many streams with Richard Spencer
controlled op like to work together. makes me more suspicious of his motives.

[Anonymous No.15222995]

>>15222977
Did you ever read the at our wit's end book?

[Anonymous No.15222997]

>>15222993
Dutton is a pseud parroting other people's theories but he is not controlled op. Like many rather naive people who get involved in natty inc the WN's grabbed onto him, gave him some fame, and then pulled him right into their community to popularize their intellectuals. You can fuck off back to /k/ now

[Anonymous No.15223001]

>>15222997
I don't use /k/ or have any desire too.

[Anonymous No.15223006]

>>15222977
>But Woodley's papers are such pretentious jargony trash
Any particular standouts?
https://michaelwoodleyofmenie.co.uk/research

[Anonymous No.15223022]

>>15223006
I'm talking about Rhythm of the west. I consider reading it a massive waste of time really
https://libgen.rocks/ads.php?md5=225E95F88B458BA8AB2FEC6D7D46D3BB

[Anonymous No.15223031]

>>15223022
collaborative works are usually a mess?

[Anonymous No.15224720]

test

[Anonymous No.15224753]

>>15224720
'i minkia

[Anonymous No.15224953]

>phd
>in
>THEOLOGY
LMAOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.15227066]

>all these racist right wing retards itt
And I thought this was a science board? Should be renamed to /psci/ - pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.15227067]

>>15227066
>muh ray cists
>muh rite wing
You do not belong on this website. Go back.

[Anonymous No.15227094]

>>15227066
hurry up and 41% yourself