Some media appearances. Not everything will be listed as most media mentions are just copies of what other media write.<\/p>\n
These are in English unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n
There are many more on this topic as it was a worldwide media event. Not written in any of the articles is that the Danish Data Protection Agency (Datatilsynet) did look into the matter, but decided not to file any charges against me. Thus, all the media has written is that they were looking into it etc., but not the news that nothing happened. Here’s the letter from Datatilsynet, along with my clean criminal records:<\/p>\n
In 2016 while the media attacks were ongoing I wrote an FAQ detailing answers to various popular questions. It can be found here.<\/a><\/p>\n For unknown reasons, some people decided to make up spelling errors and attack Adam Perkins for reposting official labor statistics. Lots of claims about lack of peer review, no source given etc., when it would have taken a total of maybe 5 minutes to find the actual source and verify the numbers. The first plot is not even mine, but was simply reused in my paper. It is from Norwegian & Finnish researchers (Skardhammar et al 2014<\/a>). See also here<\/a>.<\/p>\n I think the second is a kinda sorta reply to the first, but I don’t know what the real motive is behind this hit piece. The journalist was deliberately misleading.<\/p>\n Norwegian media researcher\u00a0Petter B. Brandtz\u00e6g<\/a> discusses me as an example of an ideological pseudoscientist. Unclear what prompted this mentioning. Perhaps the above, but seems unlikely given that these were in French.<\/p>\n This resulted in a quite large number of media reports, some more inaccurate than others. It began with two people who did some original research: a pair of students at UCL wrote for London Student<\/em>, a student blog\/newspaper. Then a bunch of larger media copied it more or less verbatim, sometimes adding their own variants, sometimes not.<\/p>\n Curiously, the Daily Mail’s coverage was the most neutral and least inaccurate of the English sources. The Danish Christian newspaper’s coverage was also good.<\/p>\n Not sure what prompted the SPLC one in particular, perhaps Guardian’s recent pieces, though I’m not mentioned directly. These two pieces were written by long-time social justice activists with no science background to speak of, but of course making strong claims about various topics:<\/p>\n German magazine Tichys Einblick<\/a> covered some research of mine:<\/p>\n French right-wing newspaper Breizh-Info has a story on my regional intelligence paper with Lynn and Fuerst (Lynn et al 2018<\/a>):<\/p>\n Noah Carl firing affair — 2018-2019<\/strong><\/p>\n I am sometimes mentioned in articles covering this:<\/p>\n Attack piece on Quillette — December 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n I am tangentially mentioned in this attack piece on Claire Lehmann and Quillette.<\/p>\n Andrew Sabisky affair — February 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n I am tangentially mentioned in relations to the hire-and-fire case of Andrew Sabisky, who attended the London conference in 2015.<\/p>\n A book few book mentions — 2018-2019<\/strong><\/p>\n Not exactly media mentions, but mentions of sorts. These are all the book mentions I saw.<\/p>\n So, let us turn to what is happening, using the example of Denmark. Emil Kirkegaard is a Danish researcher who began his career by doing a degree in linguistics. Indeed, his bachelor\u2019s thesis looks at the exciting issue of Danish spelling reform. However, tiring of the academic quiet life, Kirkegaard has turned to the academic hot potato of group differences in IQ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Emil Kirkegaard is a young student of linguistics and researcher, born around 1990, who developed together with other scientists a new, peer-reviewed online publication platform. This is an example of citizen science not totally unusual in intelligence research. Intelligence research is attractive to intellectuals from outside the field who pick up research questions that are not sufficiently studied by institutionalised science and frequently disregarded due to political reasons.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On May 8, 2016, two researchers\u2014Emil Kirkegaard<\/em> and Julius Bjerrekaer\u2014 Whatever the scientific merits of their work, the researchers in this group were and still are undeniably tight-knit. Most of them are largely unknown outside their circle but highly prolific within it. They have managed to build a thin veneer of scientific credibility that comes from getting published and cited, almost entirely by publishing and citing one another. And they keep finding new outlets for their work. The latest addition to this alliance is Open Differential Psychology, an open-access online journal that claims to have been set up in 2014 by a Danish research fellow at the Ulster Institute of Social Research called Emil Kirkegaard. It includes Gerhard Meisenberg and John Fuerst among its reviewers, and its published papers so far include a study of IQ in Sudan, and of crime among Dutch immigrant groups.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I could not find a copy of this, but seems to use the OKCupid data story as an example.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Leftist sociology article — 2020<\/strong><\/p>\n A weird kind of attention, but surprisingly accurate. See also this post on the same guy<\/a>.<\/p>\nAdam Perkins attack affair — February 2017<\/h4>\n
\n
The IQ of immigrants — March-April 2017<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
Pseudoscience — May 2017<\/h4>\n
\n
London Conference on Intelligence — December 2017 (ongoing)<\/h4>\n
\n
Racism coming back \/ Wikipedia as a battleground — January-March 2018<\/h4>\n
\n
Science denialism in politics — April 2018<\/h4>\n
\n
Regional social inequality and intelligence — April 2018<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n