@argumate re: your reblog2019 of nostalgebraist’s post on IQ here.
(I appear to be blocked by them) So IQ discourse is stupid for many reasons and even for people who exemplify Dunning-Kruger to the extent that Race/IQ folks do it's honestly incredible that they could dismiss Shalizi and Glymour.
That aside, @nostalgebraist in their imagining of such an individual who would dismiss Shalizi and Glymour implicitly characterizes Gould as a debunked ideologue who cared more about his politics than science
being simply more mathematically sophisticated versions of Gould, telling the public what it wants to hear
Sounds like somebody has neglected to read Michael Weisberg's excellent "Remeasuring Man" (2014)
Samuel George Morton (1799–1851) was the most highly regarded American scientist of the early and middle 19th century. Thanks largely to Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man, Morton's cranial capacity measurements of different races is now held up as a prime example of and cautionary tale against scientific racism. A team of anthropologists recently reevaluated Morton's work and argued that it was Gould, not Morton, who was biased in his analysis. This article is a reexamination of the Morton and Gould controversy. It argues that most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facie evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases. Gould's critique of Morton ought to remain as an illustration of implicit bias in science
(Available on sci-hub ofc at https://scihubtw.tw/10.1111/ede.12077)
