How easy is it to get provocative findings using mainstream methods published? Well, it depends on how provocative. Here’s a second round of generally nonsensical reviews for our PING paper (which you can read here and judge yourself: a good chunk of readers of this blog are themselves researchers and don’t need others to review […]

Since this one is well-covered already, I don’t need to add much. See e.g.: Nintil: Why so few women in CS: the Google memo is fundamentally right Slatestarcodex: Contra Grant On Exaggerated Differences Lee Jussim, David P Schmitt, Geoffrey Miller, Debra W Soh’s writings Math ability and sex Because lots of people keep claiming there […]

Richard Herrnstein, (1971), IQ, The Atlantic Had been looking for this one for years. Gwern managed to find it. I’ll host a mirror here. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the article is the introduction written by the editors. It ends thus: The Jensen report (as this article has come to be miscalled} dealt with […]

It could probably have been resolved decades ago, and definitely within the last 10 years with genomic data, yet it is still not. Why? Essentially, it’s because of bias in academia. It begins early: data access, then there’s authors’ own publication bias, then finally editorial and reviewing bias (all caused by lack of political/belief diversity […]

Given enough motivation, QRPs, biased reviewing and time, one can build an entire literature of studies proving anything. There’s plenty of all of these to prove left-wing ideological beliefs (and libertarian in economics). However, it is much harder to QRP large N datasets to give preferred results. So, what do large scale studies show about […]

In the SSC subreddit, someone reposted that data showing the strong race bias in the admission process for medicine. I reposted it on Twitter with some snark, to the usual effect: How racism looks like. I recommend keeping this in mind when you choose a doctor. t.co/0RzYyaT1gq pic.twitter.com/ftVX5uvMDg — Emil OW Kirkegaard (@KirkegaardEmil) June 23, […]

We have a new big paper out: Kirkegaard, E. O. W., & Fuerst, J. (2017). Admixture in Argentina. Mankind Quarterly, 57(4). Retrieved from mankindquarterly.org/archive/issue/57-4/4 Abstract Analyses of the relationships between cognitive ability, socioeconomic outcomes, and European ancestry were carried out at multiple levels in Argentina: individual (max. n = 5,920), district (n = 437), municipal […]

Note: snarky, critical. Happy to be proven wrong. Edit: after writing this, I found some more evidence, but it’s not particularly convincing either. CFAR, The Center for Applied Rationality, is connected to the Less Wrong/rationalist movement. They offer courses where one can: 4-day immersive trainings in applied rationality; form accurate beliefs; learn to get these […]

In reply to: nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/what-both-the-left-and-right-get-wrong-about-race www.geneticshumanagency.org/gha/origin-of-race-differences-in-intelligence-is-not-a-scientific-question/ There’s a new kind of ‘environmentalist’ (rather, anti-hereditarian) defense in town, or at least, one that’s not commonly seen. It goes like this: This is the first of a series of blog posts about race and intelligence. My opinions on this topic are, I think, the least popular arguments I […]