1/
So, @IshitaChandel1 is lying about a paper to get it retracted by saying it links whiteness to intelligence. This is a lie. The paper makes no such claim, and in fact doesn even hint at such a claim.
So, @IshitaChandel1 is lying about a paper to get it retracted by saying it links whiteness to intelligence. This is a lie. The paper makes no such claim, and in fact doesn even hint at such a claim.
2/
The paper only looked at white people of British Ancestory. No one else participated in the study. This means it was comparing White Brits to other White Brits, and that means all the people in the test that didn't have the genes for intelligence *WERE WHITE*
The paper only looked at white people of British Ancestory. No one else participated in the study. This means it was comparing White Brits to other White Brits, and that means all the people in the test that didn't have the genes for intelligence *WERE WHITE*
3/
Not only that, but in only surveying white brits (they state this explicitly) the paper doesnt mention *whiteness* as it excludes the french, germans, finish, polish, swedes, and irish to name a few. So it doesn't look at white populations as a whole, and doesn't claim to:
Not only that, but in only surveying white brits (they state this explicitly) the paper doesnt mention *whiteness* as it excludes the french, germans, finish, polish, swedes, and irish to name a few. So it doesn't look at white populations as a whole, and doesn't claim to:
4/ but to go even further, the paper does not measure non-whites, and so it can not (and does not) draw any conclusions about whether or not "whiteness" is more or less linked to intelligence then jewishness, blackness, or anything else.
5/
So this person is simply not telling the truth. She might claim that by only measuring white people it links intelligence to whiteness, but that is not correct because the paper only measure difference in intelligence *between white brits and other white brits* which means...
So this person is simply not telling the truth. She might claim that by only measuring white people it links intelligence to whiteness, but that is not correct because the paper only measure difference in intelligence *between white brits and other white brits* which means...
6/ you can't say the paper links intelligence to whiteness, only that it finds some white brits are smarter (and do better economically) then other white brits. How they compare to other groups is not even tested.
So @IshitaChandel1 is not telling the truth.
So @IshitaChandel1 is not telling the truth.
7/
The paper also does not say (as she claims) that poverty is in the genes. Being more succesful does not imply that genes determine succes or doom one to poverty. In fact, it is possible that wealth is linked to genes but poverty is linked to something else.
The paper also does not say (as she claims) that poverty is in the genes. Being more succesful does not imply that genes determine succes or doom one to poverty. In fact, it is possible that wealth is linked to genes but poverty is linked to something else.
8/
Generating social pressure via twitter to get papers retracted is not how the academy is supposed to work. Peer review exists in part to prevent social pressure from being a determining factor in publication. Pressuring journals is against the spirit of academic freedom.
Generating social pressure via twitter to get papers retracted is not how the academy is supposed to work. Peer review exists in part to prevent social pressure from being a determining factor in publication. Pressuring journals is against the spirit of academic freedom.
9/
There's more examples.
Here, Leslie Vosshall (@pollyp1) tries to get a paper retracted on the basis of, and I'm not joking, tweets and comments made in emails. She does this even though (I can't believe I have to say this) TWITTER IS NOT THE SAME AS ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW.
There's more examples.
Here, Leslie Vosshall (@pollyp1) tries to get a paper retracted on the basis of, and I'm not joking, tweets and comments made in emails. She does this even though (I can't believe I have to say this) TWITTER IS NOT THE SAME AS ACADEMIC PEER REVIEW.
10/
There is a proper process for calling for retraction and it involves publishing peer reviewed responses, not getting on twitter and behaving like the academic equivalent of mean girls telling people they can't sit with the cool kids unless they take back what they said.
There is a proper process for calling for retraction and it involves publishing peer reviewed responses, not getting on twitter and behaving like the academic equivalent of mean girls telling people they can't sit with the cool kids unless they take back what they said.
11/
@NatureComms needs to step up and announce that any and all review of published papers happens according to the correct process, and they won't be outsourcing the review and editing process to the hivemind of twitter.
If they don't they'll lose all credibility.
/fin
@NatureComms needs to step up and announce that any and all review of published papers happens according to the correct process, and they won't be outsourcing the review and editing process to the hivemind of twitter.
If they don't they'll lose all credibility.
/fin
PS/
She locked her account. If she unlocks, disagree vigorously but as always I don't want to see mean spirited behaiviour. We make arguments and call out nonsense, no mean spirited behaviour.
Thank You
She locked her account. If she unlocks, disagree vigorously but as always I don't want to see mean spirited behaiviour. We make arguments and call out nonsense, no mean spirited behaviour.
Thank You
https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1329803330781020160/photo/1
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
