Imma gonna start a hashtag. For archiving purposes.
#NathanCofnas
#NathanCofnas
https://twitter.com/jpjjr1961/status/1314597336052641794
Let's observe this pattern of #NathanCofnas saying something and then insisting he didn't quite say what he said.
https://twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/1314288328095666176?s=20
Going strong since at least December 2019!
https://twitter.com/Katja_Thieme/status/1203714667249467392?s=20
Another installment of #NathanCofnas says the words, but when others quote the words, he didn't say them like this and they must be lying. Also, he'll have you know he's talked to lawyers about his words being quoted. Just don't say that's a legal threat!
https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1314952366051917824?s=20
Wherever would people get the idea that #NathanCofnas thinks himself both superior in his intelligence while also victimized by criticism against hereditarian ideas?
I really wouldn’t know.
I really wouldn’t know.
https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1315009261454331904?s=20
Nathan is quite adept at shining the spotlight at a very short reference to his work, making a mountain out of it, and thereby obscuring the view to more damning points that are made in its vicinity. 1) Jackson & Winston‘s ref to Cofnas in its context. 2) Cofnas‘ protest. 
In case you’ve been blocked, here is Emil Kirkegaard coming to Nathan Cofnas‘ defence. And look, there’s a serial killer avatar getting his points in as well.
Some believe #NathanCofnas when he says that despite writing about “race” he really means “groups” which, when it comes down to it, are his ideas about how policy should be applied to “individuals.” Let Jonathan’s mini-thread prevent falling in into trap.
https://twitter.com/JonathanKaplan/status/1315051887368970242?s=20
Because #NathanCofnas is such a wonderful man, someone who just knows how to argue for his positions, I will include his response to this link.
https://twitter.com/DialecticalA/status/1315323037152161799?s=20
I can't always seem to find the patience that others have. I'm often sorry about that. I edited my response to this thread in an effort to be a little nicer. You can still see how shaky the defence is of what emerge as noticeable implications from #NathanCofnas' published work.
Someone asked me, in response to my mini-thread above, why I would object to keeping "equally smart" kids out of the same class. He also suggested that Phillippe's defence is not elaborate, but a plain reading of #NathanCofnas's paper. I think the opposite is true. My response:
You presume we have an agreement on "equally smart." Nathan presumes IQ is an established measure of it.
I don't agree with that.
To make it worse: Nathan is concerned particularly with IQ differences between racial groups (the point of his paper).
Mine is an obvious reading.
I don't agree with that.
To make it worse: Nathan is concerned particularly with IQ differences between racial groups (the point of his paper).
Mine is an obvious reading.
John is correct, of course: in his paper with Andrew Winston, they speak of a "two-tiered educational system." It was #NathanCofnas himself who brought up segregation when, wrongly, he wanted to claim that he was being misquoted and defamed.
https://twitter.com/jpjjr1961/status/1315387306077978624?s=20
We can see that #NathanCofnas jumps all too touchily and wrongly to claims that others are misquoting or misunderstanding his writing.
Another point is that #NathanCofnas, & his defenders, when they see "segregation" as an accusation, equate it to de jure segregation only. So:
First, Cofnas brings up segregation.
Second, Cofnas is wrong in claiming Jensen didn't advocate segregation.
First, Cofnas brings up segregation.
Second, Cofnas is wrong in claiming Jensen didn't advocate segregation.
https://twitter.com/itsbirdemic/status/1315073726296346631?s=20
Third, the policies Cofnas proposes on the basis of hereditarian positions can hardly be defended by claiming they don't result in segregation. Because they do. According to current understanding of the term. Which, unlike Cofnas seems to think, is not limited to de jure notions.
To end this thread. Segregation doesn't have to be explicitly advocated by hereditarians. The kind of policies that Cofnas and his defenders imagine will result in forms of educational segregation, whether segregation is explicitly named as goal or not.
Cofnas protests too much.
Cofnas protests too much.
Thank you for reading.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
