I can see this damn Andrew Sabisky situation is not going away. I have written two books about Eugenics and race, teach it, at the place where it was founded, in the lab named after its creator, Francis Galton, where I was an Undergrad and still am a Fellow, so, some thoughts 1/n
2/n like Cummings, he appears to be bewitched by science, without having made the effort to understand the areas he is invoking, nor it’s history. Here’s a para from #HowToArgueWithARacist
The argument that humans are susceptible to selective breeding as in agriculture (as expressed by Dawkins) is not incorrect, though it is simplistic to the point of being almost meaningless. 3/n
The enhancement of specific traits in animals also results in unforeseen and awful side-effects as a result of polygenic effects, pleiotropy and the general melee of the genome. 4/n
His presence at the Intelligence conference held on UCL grounds is problematic, as it is mostly attended by scientifically semi-literate cranks, actual white supremacists, and utter fools, whose self style heretical pose masks not just weirdness, but ignorance and bigotry 5/n
These views on IQ. Well, there are differences on average between different populations, however 1) these numbers are not at all right and appear to be derived (I think) from fraudulent research by the actual racist Richard Lynn, the figurehead of this crank movement. 6/n
2) though cognitive abilities are most certainly heritable, this confused statement (and others) indicates a failure to understand this concept. Attainment gaps are far better explained by environmental differences than genetic
(This is all in my book btw) amazon.co.uk/Does-Race-Exis…
I could go on about the scientific illiteracy much further, but the moral repugnance is overwhelming. Though the U.K. never had a formal Eugenics policy, despite the idea being founded here, in my lab, IQ was used in the involuntary sterilisation of 10s of 1000s in the US 8/n
Along with disabilities, homosexuality, alcohol abuse, mental health problems, vague criteria that we now know are highly polygenic and highly environmentally constrained 9/n
I see Toby Young and others are now invoking free speech as a defence of Sabisky’s views. Fine, but that doesn’t green light him into advising government with scientifically incoherent and ahistorical opinions. 10/n
I am all for scientifically minded peopel advising government. In fact I am all for scientists advising government. From this perspective, Sabisky and indeed Cummings look bewitched by science without doing the legwork 11/n
Instead this resembles the marshalling of misunderstood or specious science into a political ideology. The history here is important, because this process is exactly what happened at the birth of scientific racism and the birth of eugenics. 12/n
‘I’ll know my song well before I start singing’. If Cummings wants some real scientific advice, he should ask scientists. Cos it’s a hard rain's a-gonna fall 13/13
Addendum: I'm block happy these days. You use insults, I block. I only see responses from people who follow me, so I have to seek out the race weenies, and then I block. If you can't be civil you can jog on.
15/13 Just another point as this has blown up: I don’t see much point on hand waving flappage about Eugenics unless you have a better grasp of the science, and a tight grip on the history.
16/13 It is not the same as animal breeding, historically, politically, scientifically. Eugenics is poorly defined in all three categories too, as we use modern medical genetics to eradicate diseases by selection and genetic modification.
17/13 hand-wavey discourse about CRISPR edited embryos or PRS selected embryos tend to be in the realm of science fiction rather than biologically plausible. Cummings blog is indicative of that.
Btw: RA Fisher is up there as one of the greatest scientists in history. Modern biology rests upon his shoulders along with a handful of others, many from UCL. He was also not without racist and eugenicist views, as were many of his contemporaries.
Again, let us know our own history and understand how people can be simultaneously outrageous geniuses, and similarly have offensive views. One day I will write a biography of the Modern Synthesis.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Round 2: here’s more on the scientific racist story from yesterday’s thread. This time, it’s focussed on the access and utility of Biobank data to fuel their ideologically driven agenda.
And the connected reports on the weird figureheads of the pronatalism cult, that @hopenothate and @harryshukman got stuck into.
These people are scientifically illiterate, ostentatiously strange, but motivated and publicity slakeless.
It is worth noting that though the focus is on Kirkegaard, the Collinses, Edward Dutton and a few others, there are plenty more of these grifters floating around in this faecosystem. A couple of them are or were bona fide academics, though in largely unrelated fields.
Ok, here we go: Much of my work concerns the history and return of scientific racism. I’ve written extensively about attempts to resurrect the shuffling corpse of
race science and eugenics for many years. Bigotry dressed up as biology. 1/n
Today, the Guardian, alongside @hopenothate , today publish an in depth undercover investigation into the efforts of a network of far right race and IQ obsessives, who have been trying to influence discourse about race science. theguardian.com/world/2024/oct…
@hopenothate I’ve been tracking these ideas and clowns for years, and have helped with this incredible investigation.
I was naïve in writing them off as basement dwelling racist weirdos, as what the investigation shows is that they got organised, with funding and strategy.
A short thread on grammar, as the fewer/less crowd are outnabout. I used to really care until I started working regularly on @BBCRadio4, where I discovered that the most frequent complaints were from male grammar pedants.
They typically moaned about decimate, fewer/less, octopus and bacterium/bacteria. The thing about grammar pedants is that they’re not pedantic enough, and their corrections were often erroneous - stuff that is easy to Google - and born of doctrinaire oneupmanship.
And so I revised my position to be a descriptivist. Not everyone was taught the ‘correct’ form of grammar, which obviously, is entirely made up. The only thing that matters is effectiveness of communication. @OliverKamm is my Obi Wan on this matter.
I’ve had some fun with the race wienies today - it’s almost as if I could write a book on how to argue with a racist. Anyway, here’s some of the highlights: 1) the credentialists. How can it be that I have a job in one of the best genetics departments on Earth, and the BBC?? 😘
2) ‘you’re a disingenuous retard’
3) ‘I understand population genetics cos I have eyes’. Wish I’d known it was that easy before spending all that time learning it
I read a lot of books, and here are my non-fiction books of the year, just in time for presents, in no particular order.
1: Toxic by Sarah Ditum. Britney, Paris, Lindsay, Janet, Amy. These early-noughties mononym women who stood charged with being women at the juncture between the old media and the new. Will make you sad, angry and baffled.
2: Ultra-Processed People by @DoctorChrisVT revelations about an industrial complex that underlies so much of the health problems humankind faces, because our lives are flooded by food that is not food.
I went to see Oppenheimer. It is hard to imagine a film that I disliked more intensely. Apart from Tenet.
Positives: acting is fabulous, cinematography beautiful, music a bit overbearing but massive.
Negatives <deep breath>
* learn to write dialogue. People don’t speak like that. Every sentence is designed to elicit a zinger or exposition point in response.
* the editing is frenetic. Intercutting from different locations, colour/black and white, mad angles that make no sense.
The whole film is a montage.