If you suggest in any semi-professional environment or institution that some part of the variance in racial disparities for outcomes (e.g., crime rates, job performance, standardized test scores) could be due to something inherent, you will likely be figuratively hanged.

https://twitter.com/Etanarachel/status/1976678860663214524

The idea that no one believes in blank-slatism is quite bizarre because the default hypothesis most institutions build on is that racial disparities in outcomes must be due to environmental factors, with no other explanation outside of systemic racism, discrimination, microaggressions, historical trauma, etc.

This is literally the basis for DEI, affirmative action, disparate impact, etc.

Always important to remember how much of the extreme anti-hereditarian or blank-slatist view of the world is explicitly rooted in a Marxist epistemology, where the goal isn't to pursue objective science but to build on an overtly Marxist or socialist philosophical framework.
Not in Our Genes is a great read because it's one of those moments where extreme critics of hereditarian research (e.g., Lewontin, Kamin, Rose) openly state their worldview without euphemism or apology. Their views, and those of their intellectual descendants, are about a broader epistemological project that is willing to lie, censor, and manipulate for a dialectical-materialist philosophy.

🙃

"The negative attitude that Gardner expresses toward measurement does not lead to constructive science."

https://twitter.com/nathancofnas/status/1975525159738986882

Source: Haier and Colom's updated textbook, The Science of Human Intelligence, essentially a revised version of Hunt's original textbook on the topic.

I've always been skeptical of the "backlash model," the idea that exposure to riots (particularly those coded as left-wing) significantly pushes voters toward the pro-law-and-order side.

For the 2011 England riots, exposure led to a local leftward shift, with increased opposition to the Conservative candidate. This is just one study, measuring short-term effects (2012 election), relying on aggregate (ecological) inference for racial subgroup effects, and capturing only London-level effects, but it serves as a data point.
Turnout increased in wards near riot locations or rioters' homes, conservative vote share decreased significantly (by ~1.5 to 2.2 percentage points) in those wards.

White voters drove much of the change (higher turnout, decreased Conservative support), while black voters also reduced support but showed no turnout change.

Midnight long post:

While I think it’s far-fetched to claim the political right has an inherent stupidity problem (the IQ difference between White Dems and White Reps is statistically negligible, similar to the average sex difference in intelligence, and historical data shows this gap reversed in past cohorts), it’s fair to say some factions on the right have a serious slop problem. This issue exists on the left too, but I’m more concerned about the right’s current state.

A segment of the right, from average Facebook moms to high-profile commentators, engages in blatantly foolish, low-quality garbage. This includes anti-vaccine rhetoric, Tucker Carlson claiming demonic attacks, conspiracy theories about Macron’s wife being his transgender father, third-world worship, Russia fanaticism, and more. Unfortunately, there’s an audience for this. The “everything leads to the Jews” narrative is another example — criticism of Israel is fine, but it often veers into absurd conspiracies (e.g., Ian Carroll types).

I watched a stream from a well-known conservative commentator, and within five minutes, they were ranting about impending vaccine deaths, Dr. Fauci, and the Musk-Trump episode being a psyop. I genuinely don’t understand this mind-numbing garbage, but it clearly has an audience. Also, likely controversial here for some reason: much of the MAHA stuff is misguided or unfounded. Yes, there are areas to improve, but a lot of it stems from people misinterpreting basic data or failing to account for confounding variables.

The “explosion in autism rates” claim is just one example.

In the first YouGov poll of US adults regarding the Trump-Musk episode, a slight majority of Americans prefer not to side with either Trump or Musk.

However, among self-identified Republicans, a vast majority support Trump over Musk. A plurality in the sample supports terminating Musk's government subsidies and contracts.

I find the “no center-right party” claim bizarre because 1) the current GOP leader is significantly more socially liberal than nearly all past GOP nominees, and 2) Trump and Romney garnered nearly identical self-identified voter support (93-94%).

https://twitter.com/JoePostingg/status/1927076498743197778

If you’re a center-right, Romney-type person, your complaints with the GOP likely stem from the party and its leadership leaning too far left. The current GOP leader:

— Explicitly affirmed Obergefell v. Hodges.
— Has seriously considered raising taxes on the wealthy.
— Embraces protectionism and tariff policies (historically left-wing).
— Explicitly opposes cutting Social Security, Medicare, etc.