Thread by @evopsychgoogle

this was never a comedy account. this has always been a horror account

time for a halloween evo psych journal club special. this one is brought to you by @ElsevierConnect! get ur free trial today at @sci_hub!

hi, im EPG. im a leading intellectual of the bdsm group quillette. im also the inventor of a new kind of STI called ST/IQ: an STI that only ppl of IQ 180+ can get.

today we're looking at this paper: sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.paid… now ssooOOOMMme people have called it racist. but it got peer reviewed tho! gosh, ppl will call aanNNyyytthHHiiiNNNgg racist ttHHeeeSSee days😏u gotta judge the evidence. so lets examine the evidence. how bad can it be?

summing up the abstract:
-black babies die more because of “evolution”
-black people die earlier because of “evolution”
-black people get AIDS because of “evolution”
-black people commit crime because of “evolution”
-black skin makes the brain evil through “pleiotropy”
wtf?

1. introduction
just starting off with a nice little explainer about what pleiotropy is, get u all nice and comfortable, and then…

they start off by describing a review by ducrest et al. (2008), who propose that *some* darker coloured animals are more aggressive. the cause may be pleiotropy.

turns out ducrest cautioned NOT to generalise these findings to humans. not “because of genetic mutations” (as this paper frames it) but because the genes ducrest et al. describe are completely different to the genes associated with skin colour in humans:
sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.tree…

ok, so their biology argument collapses instantly. a minor detail.

nonetheless, im sure the authors, in their noble hunt for pleiotropy between skin colour and the tenants of phrenology, performed the rigorous statistical tests to rule out bias and spurious correlations, as is standard practice: sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrg3461
sci-hub.tw/10.1126/scienc…

ok, well they dont do any genetic analysis to *actually* infer pleiotropy.
nonetheless, im sure the rest of this paper is solid...

next, they try to draw a comparison between black RATS and black people… (wtf)

im sure they didnt *mean* to compare black people to rats. im sure that was an unfortunate misunderstanding. oh wait, then they draw a comparison between black DOGS and black people

“assuming that peoples attitudes and beliefs about dogs have some validity…”

ah, science. its as easy as assuming assumptions are valid to then assume it as data supporting your hypothesis

to back up their dog assumptions they cite coren (2011), which as it turns out, is not a peer reviewed paper at all, but a *blog post*

(note: not only a blog post, but a blog post that argues AGAINST the racist projections of this paper. black dogs are just as friendly as any other dog)
psychologytoday.com/au/blog/canine…

ok, yes, well, nonetheless! such minor nitpicks shouldnt invalidate their ~reasonable hypothesis~ as bo winegard would say. moving on

3. human “studies”
the authors start talking about black crime stats

hmmm, i wonder if that citation is… yes, its none other than prominent white nationalist jared taylor
splcenter.org/fighting-hate/…

the journal jared taylor published in has an… interesting history. nonetheless, surely the ideology of white nationalism wouldnt compromise the integrity of the science or peer review? r-right??
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Pea…

next they cite richard lynn, who, in trying to figure out why IQ alone cannot fully explain the SES gap b/w whites and blacks, concludes that its because black people are psychopaths(?) (and its because of evolution too)
sci-hub.tw/https://doi.or…

ok, i know that sounds bad. nonetheless, im sure these claims by richard lynn have held up to scruti-
risk-resilience.berkeley.edu/sites/default/…
sci-hub.tw/10.1016/S0191-…
link.springer.com/article/10.102…
...ah well. nonetheless, im sure u can just opt to ignore all that, because thats what these authors did

nonetheless, im sure this richard lynn guy is trustworthy, whos obsession with [checks notes] eugenics has no bearing on the ~quality~ of his science™
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/…

ok, so maybe richard lynn isnt the most reliable source. nonetheless, moving on...

wait, is this science or their deepest insecurities boiling over?

what is "sex had a weakening effect"?

thus… blacks have larger penises

if ur confused about how this is relevant, dont u worry, im sure the explanation will be scientific

penis is a core feature of J Phillipe Rushtons "r/K selection theory", who is lead author of this paper. the theory goes, blacks (or “negroids” as Rushton named them) evolved to be aggressive, low IQ, and have lots of babies (which requires large dick i guess).

but asians (or “mongoloids” as he calls them) evolved to be passive, high IQ, and have few babies (thus small dicks). caucasians fall in the middle, being a "goldilocks race", having the best of both worlds and mediocre penis.

oh, so u think Rushtons r/K selection theory sounds crazy?
researchgate.net/publication/24…
philipperushton.net/wp-content/upl…
sci-hub.tw/10.1037/h00789…

ok, yes it is crazy :/
nonetheless...

https://twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/1173321414025392129

c’mon, surely this testosterone claim holds up…

huh, weird they didn’t cite this more recent article on testosterone differences academic.oup.com/jcem/article/9…
weird, its like they are cherry picking sources here or something
nonetheless,

next the authors bring up “cold winters theory” (the hypothesis that humans evolved higher IQ has they migrated out of Africa to colder climates)

oh, it turns out their theory was criticized? why do they not provide a citation to that criticism?

why didn’t they cite this critical paper by @JelteWicherts?
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/Linked…
ah… maybe because they ignore *a lot* of important confounding variables
nonetheless,

@JelteWicherts 5. conclusion

im sure the Lynn & Vanhanen 2006 paper they cite as support for their hypothesis is reliabl- ...oh jesus fucking christ
sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.paid…

nonetheless

that may be the end of the paper, but its not over
who are these authors anyway?

lets google donald templer. im sure this guy is objective™ and rational™ and not, oh i dont know, pure evil web.archive.org/web/2019092602…

what about j phillipe rushton? is he a little less unhinged?
splcenter.org/fighting-hate/…

j phillipe rushton was obsessed with the idea that penis size negatively correlates with IQ. his methods of data collection included harassing black ppl in the shopping mall about their sex lives and penis size and how far they could ejaculate. all without IRB approval

he was also head of the Pioneer Fund, a fund dedicated to promoting eugenic policy, founded by a wealthy nazi sympathiser. Pioneer Fund also donated to white nationalist org, American Renaissance
splcenter.org/fighting-hate/…
iupui.edu/~histwhs/h699.…

did rushton and templer disclose this conflict of interest?

lets look at the citations
there are 48 citations total

(note: the citation for Trut L. N. (2003) was entered wrong. Its really Trut, L. N. (1999))

14 of the 48 citations are self-citations
(11 for Rushton, 3 for Templer, ~29% self-citation rate)

37 (~77%) of the citations are more than 5 years old
25 (~52%) of the citations are also more than 10 years old

💫phrenology!💫 a vibrant 📈and rapidly moving field!🚀

16 (1/3rd) of the citations have been recipients of the Pioneer Fund

but wait, its not over
this is Personality and Individual Differences most downloaded paper. take a guess at the kind of people have been sharing and downloading it altmetric.com/details/653619…