Another bit of radio for your Christmas traveling. Was on Kerry Lutz's show and we talked about the new book coming out (Curse of the High IQ) and what will happen when today's college kids enter politics and the judicial system!
With Facebook and Twitter tracking their posts can be used against them too. Its going to be hard for millenials to run for office when what they said years ago can be used against them. Similar to what happened with Ron Paul and his racist newsletters.
Something worth reading about the corrupt so called 'social sciences.'
"How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes"
A section:
"His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias."
I have a high IQ. I have a graduate degree from Harvard. I have been around people with high IQ's my whole life. Do you know how many of them have wisdom?
Not many and that is the difference between understanding and being a bien pensant, low information voter. Very, very few of these high IQ people I have met are remotely interested to know how the world works. They have all the talking points down cold, and no understanding of these snippets to back them up in a rational argument.
So I retreat into my vast library to inform myself and pray it does some good one day for both me and my family.
Something worth reading about the corrupt so called ‘social sciences.’
“How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes”
A section:
“His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.”
6 comments:
seems like a good book , especially since I have written about IQ, so there should be some useful stuff in there
With Facebook and Twitter tracking their posts can be used against them too. Its going to be hard for millenials to run for office when what they said years ago can be used against them. Similar to what happened with Ron Paul and his racist newsletters.
Hey Cap,
Something worth reading about the corrupt so called 'social sciences.'
"How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes"
A section:
"His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias."
Read the whole thing at:
http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth-about-stereotypes/
I have a high IQ. I have a graduate degree from Harvard. I have been around people with high IQ's my whole life. Do you know how many of them have wisdom?
Not many and that is the difference between understanding and being a bien pensant, low information voter. Very, very few of these high IQ people I have met are remotely interested to know how the world works. They have all the talking points down cold, and no understanding of these snippets to back them up in a rational argument.
So I retreat into my vast library to inform myself and pray it does some good one day for both me and my family.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/hapless-graduates-sue-their-former-universities-in-shockingly-high-numbers/news-story/6f5a7be7093804775034301bacb07a23
I thought you might like this one.
Something worth reading about the corrupt so called ‘social sciences.’
“How a rebellious scientist uncovered the surprising truth about stereotypes”
A section:
“His fellow psychologists shifted in their seats. Jussim pointed out that the level of obfuscation the authors went to, in order to disguise their actual data, was intense. Statistical techniques appeared to have been chosen that would hide the study’s true results. And it appeared that no peer reviewers, or journal editors, took the time, or went to the effort of scrutinizing the study in a way that was sufficient to identify the bold misrepresentations.
While the authors’ political motivations for publishing the paper were obvious, it was the lax attitude on behalf of peer reviewers – Jussim suggested – that was at the heart of the problems within social psychology. The field had become a community in which political values and moral aims were shared, leading to an asymmetry in which studies that reinforced left-wing narratives had come to be disproportionately represented in the literature. And this was not, to quote Stephen Colbert, because “reality had a liberal bias”. It was because social psychology had a liberal bias.”
Read the whole thing at:
http://quillette.com/2015/12/04/rebellious-scientist-surprising-truth-about-stereotypes/
Post a Comment