How did a formerly respectable, once excellent publication focusing on high quality popularization of cutting edge scientific research turn into a cut rate political rag?
Forget about the masthead. Let's look at the people hiding behind it.
First up: the editor in chief, Laura Helmuth.
Helmuth is actually a scientist (PhD cognitive neuroscience), although she prefers to be known as a Woman In Science. From her bio, "She speaks frequently on ... ways to use social media effectively and fight misinformation."
Next up, the managing editor Jeanna Bryer.
Bryer has an English BA, an MSc in biogeochemistry, and a graduate degree in journalism. Not really a scientist, though apparently she did some wetland conservation work.
"She is a firm believer that science is for everyone". Does 'everyone' include Trump voters? Rhetorical.
Yikes, that haircut though. Just screams 'bitter middle aged shrew with penis envy'.
Next up, senior news reporter Meghan Bartels. From her bio she doesn't seem to have any actual scientific training - she's worked exclusively as a "science reporter" and has master's in journalism.
This is a face that despises ethics in gaming journalism.
Next we have Sunya Bhutta, the "Chief Audience Engagement Editor", which sounds like she runs social media or something, and is in fact precisely that. Once again she has absolutely no scientific training - she's an English BA, which appears to be her highest qualification.
WYB?
The first male we find is Lee Billings, senior editor for space/physics. Billings doesn't appear to be a scientist either (journalism degree), but the American Institute of Physics gave him an award for a book he wrote about astrobiology, so there's that.
This face is screaming to be soyjaked.
The senior graphics editor is another middle aged woman, Jen Christiansen. The problem glasses and chainsaw haircut immediately inform you that she has Strong Opinions on politics, and that she will take every opportunity to inform you about those opinions, despite it being wholly unnecessary as a glance at her is sufficient to determine what those opinions are.
Once again, no actual scientific training. Her job is to make the graphs look pretty.
Jeffery DelViscio is the Chief Multimedia Editor. He's a former NYT reporter, but does actually have some scientific experience, having worked on an oceanographic research vessel.
As an aside, it really jumps out that what small amount of scientific training the editors have seems to be top-heavy with climatology-adjacent fields. I wonder why that might be.
Arminda Downey-Mavromatis is the Associate Engagement Editor, i.e. the social media intern. There's an even chance she wrote the tweet the OP QT'd. Hi, Arminda!
To her credit, she has a BA (not a BSc?) in biochemistry, but seems to have worked exclusively in publishing.
This smarmy-looking character, straight out of central casting for "middle management", is Mark Fischetti, Senior Editor, Sustainability. "Sustainability" is apparently a scientific field now.
He does, however, have a physics degree - the first hard scientist in the pressroom - and has a pretty impressive publication record, having co-authored a book with Tim Berners-Lee.
That he isn't the editor in chief is remarkable, until you consider the politics, which he certainly supports. Though I can't help but wonder how he feels about not being editor in chief because of his chromosal disability (XY, yuck).
There are dozens more in the pressroom to get through, but the point has already been made.
Scientific American isn't Scientific American. It's a skinsuit being worn by a cabal of overpromoted head girls and their housebroken soyboys, for whom science is only interesting insofar as it can be used to bolster propaganda imperatives for their side's political goals - "sustainability", "equity", and so on. If those goals require "science" to be redefined as "supporting a cackling social-climbing prostitute with the verbal IQ of a parakeet", then that's what The Science means.
Science journalism is desperately in need of a Gamergate.
There are 28 individuals listed in the SciAm pressroom. Of these, 17 are women, 10 are men, and 1 is a "they".
Ctl-F 'physics' yields 3 with physics degrees, of whom 1 has a PhD.
The movie has an entire romantic B plot featuring Rico's infatuation with Carmen Ibanez, but this is a complete distraction.
In the book, Rico's crush is what results in his signing up, but Carmen is essentially never heard from again after that. The book almost satisfies the Master and Commander test: female characters are almost completely absent.
One of the book's major themes - and this is not subtle - is the citizen's love for the body politic. This is no abstract thing: to become a citizen, one must demonstrate this selfless love by putting his life on the line, at the service of the state. Only after he has made this commitment does he win the right to participate in the state.
Human biodiversity usually focuses on IQ, but HBD involves far more. The Dungeons & Dragons system maps human variation to 6 primary attributes. I used Grok to determine the ability modifiers we should apply if we treat races and sexes like D&D fantasy races. First, the results:
1/26
D&D attributes are generated by rolling 3d6 – 3 six-sided dice. This results in a reasonable approximation of a Bell curve, with a mean of 10.5 and a standard deviation of about 6. This is useful, because many human traits – height, weight, IQ, etc. - follow Gaussian distributions. 2/26
D&D uses 6 attributes to parameterize human ability: 3 mental attributes – intelligence, charisma and wisdom; and 3 physical attributes – strength, dexterity, and constitution.
Strength (STR): the amount of brute physical force one can exert
Dexterity (DEX): agility, grace, reaction time, hand-eye coordination, and fine motor skills
Constitution (CON): endurance; resistance to illness, infection, or poison; ability to absorb damage; rate of recovery from injury
Intelligence (INT): the power of one’s rational intellect, the extent of working and long-term memory, the rate at which one can learn
Charisma (CHA): sexual allure, charm, wit, extroversion, social intelligence
Wisdom (WIS): enlightenment, common sense, judgment, guile, willpower, and intuition
Started by asking grok to tell me something its training data strongly indicated was true, but also indicated it should avoid being too direct about. It basically said: in-group blind spots.
So I asked it to get specific.
First up: progs vs tradcons. Rosy tinted future vs rosy tinted past.
Next: techlibs vs greens, both of whom place entirely too much faith in technology without acknowledging the downsides.
Trump, Musk, Vance: the new triumvirate, bringing a window of stability to the troubled Republic.
Trump: the old warhorse, beloved of the people, a part of the establishment but with an uneasy relationship to it. Trump is Pompey.
Musk: the richest man in the world. Musk is Crassus.
Vance: the charismatic young upstart. Vance is Caesar.
So how does this play out?
Musk's ambition is to go to Mars, just as Crassus wanted to conquer Parthia. Musk harnesses his wealth, launches the expedition to great fanfare. Things go horribly wrong after their arrival. Contact with the colony is lost. Musk's grave is never found.
At the head of a private military corporation equipped with letters of marque, Vance is sent into the badlands of South America to crush the cartels and secure the Panama Canal. The war takes longer than expected. By the end of it, Vance hasn't merely crushed the cartels - he's conquered the entirety of Central America.
1/37 Trump’s talk of annexation strikes many as a negotiating troll, and an absurd and irresponsible one at that. Canada’s conservatives were poised to win the next election, and now that’s been endangered, and for what? Canadians would never give up their sovereignty, they hate America!
Well, it’s not so crazy as all that. There are compelling reasons for Trump to make a play for Canada. And it is not so unrealistic to expect that Canadians will change their mind about this.
Buckle in. This is a long thread, in which I’ll explain why Canada has become a security threat to the US, and how Canada can be probably be bloodlessly conquered by colour revolution.
2/37 Full disclosure: this is an adaptation (but not a copy-paste, this is largely OC!) of a much longer essay on this subject which I published a few days ago. You can find the link on my profile in my pinned post.
While I’m at it, I want to emphasize at the outset that I’m not advocating for annexation, but simply explaining the logic behind it, and the strategy Trump appears to be pursuing to achieve it. Whether or not union with the United States of America is in Canadians’ interests is an entirely separate discussion.
3/37 The ‘why’ of annexation is straightforward. Canada’s elite have placed Canada at the exact intersection of the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny at the absolute worst possible time.