Also, would you consider that it's all right to ask questions about correlations between race/ethnicity and the incidence of heart disease / hypertension / sickle-cell anemia etc., but not about correlations between race/ethnicity and IQ?
(I don't have a dog in this fight, and I understand that IQ measurement is a very unreliable and culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence; I am just curious about the way that people who are indignant about such inquiries think.)
What gives you the idea that it is unreliable?
It is one of the most consistent and reliable measurements in psychology.
> culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence
In what sense?
In the sense that it is only a good indicator for success because of the way our society is currently setup?
Quite possibly. But I don't see that as a criticism of IQ.
It is really a criticism of the disturbed individuals using "intelligence" as the key driver of human worth.
By the way that kind of thinking is more prevalent with the intellectual elite who visit hacker news than it is of the average alt-right supporter.
IQ is BS and is just a stand in for implying inferiority.
That's unfortunate. Results of scientific inquiry should not depend on who is asking the questions.
So... where did you get the idea that this is a credible takeaway from his work?
(Also, he'd probably be the first person to agree with the assessment that university employment or credentials doesn't necessarily mean that your claims or research are any good...)
Do you have any evidence?